65A - RPT - REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE

Home Browse Search

B. State Law Similarly, under California law, aside from the person who directly commits a criminal offense, no other person is guilty as a principal unless he aids and abets. (People v. Dole (1898) 122 Cal. 486; People v. Stein (1942) 55 Cal. App. 2d 417.) A person who innocently aids in the commission of the crime cannot be found guilty. (People v. Fredoni (1910) 12 Cal. App. 685.) To authorize a conviction as an aider and abettor of crime, it must be shown not only that the person so charged aided and assisted in the commission of the offense, but also that he abetted the act- that is, that he criminally or with guilty knowledge and intent aided the actual perpetrator in the commission of the act. (People v. Terman (1935) 4 Cal. App. 2d 345.) To "abet" another in commission of a crime implies a consciousness of guilt in instigating, encouraging, promoting, or aiding the commission of the offense. (People v. Best (1941) 43 Cal. App. 2d 100.) "Abet" implies knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator of the crime. (People v. Stein, supra.) To be guilty of an offense committed by another person, the accused must not only aid such perpetrator by assisting or supplementing his efforts, but must, with knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator, abet by inciting or encouraging him. (People v. Le Grant (1946) 76 Cal. App. 2d 148, 172; People v. Carlson (1960) 177 Cal. App. 2d 201.) The conclusion under state law aiding and abetting would be similar to the analysis above under federal law. Similar to federal law immunities available to local legislators, discussed above, state law immunities provide some protection for local legislators. Local legislators are certainly immune from civil liability relating to legislative acts; it is unclear, however, whether they would also be immune from criminal liability. (Steiner v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.AppAth 1771 (assuming, but finding no California authority relating to a "criminal" exception to absolute immunity for legislators under state law) .)5 Given the apparent state of the law, local legislators could only be certain that they would be immune from civil liability and could not be certain that ' Although the Steiner Court notes that "well-established federal law supports the exception," when federal case authority is applied in a state law context, there may be a different outcome. Federal authorities note that one purpose supporting criminal immunity as to federal legislators from federal prosecution is the separation of powers doctrine, which does not apply in the context of federal criminal prosecution of local legislators. However, if a state or county prosecutor brought criminal charges against a local legislator, the separation of powers doctrine may bar such prosecution. (Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3.) As federal authorities note, bribery, or other criminal charges that do not depend upon evidence of, and cannot be said to further, any legislative acts, can still be prosecuted against legislators. (See Bruce v. Riddle (4th Cir. 1980) 631 F.2d 272, 279 ["Illegal acts such as bribery are obviously not in aid of legislative activity and legislators can claim no immunity for illegal acts."]; United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 [indictment for bribery not dependent upon how legislator debated, voted, or did anything in chamber or committee; prosecution need only show acceptance of money for promise to vote, not carrying through of vote by legislator]; United States v. Swindall (11th Cir. 1992) 971 F.2d © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 36 All Rights Reserved 65A-97