• Aiding and Abetting Deﬁned. People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547,
560–561 [199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318].
• Natural and Probable Consequences, Reasonable Person Standard. People v.
Nguyen (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 518, 531 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 323].
• A Verdict of First Degree Murder May Not Be Based on the Natural and
Probable Consequences Doctrine; Murder Under That Doctrine is Second
Degree Murder. People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 155, 166 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d
438, 325 P.3d 972].
• Reasonably Foreseeable Crime Need Not Be Committed for Reason Within
Common Plan. People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 616–617 [180
Cal.Rptr.3d 100, 337 P.3d 1159].
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Introduction to Crimes,
§§ 82, 84, 88.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, §§ 85.02[1A][a], 85.03[d] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140,
Challenges to Crimes, § 140.10 (Matthew Bender).
In People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 268 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d
1013], the court concluded that the trial court must sua sponte identify and describe
for the jury any target offenses allegedly aided and abetted by the defendant.
Although no published case to date gives a clear deﬁnition of the terms “natural”
and “probable,” nor holds that there is a sua sponte duty to deﬁne them, we have
included a suggested deﬁnition. (See People v. Prettyman, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p.
291 (conc. & dis. opn. of Brown, J.); see also People v. Coffman and Marlow
(2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 107–109 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30] [court did not err in
failing to deﬁne “natural and probable”].)
Lesser Included Offenses
The court has a duty to instruct on lesser included offenses that could be the
natural and probable consequence of the intended offense when the evidence raises
a question whether the greater offense is a natural and probable consequence of the
original, intended criminal act. (People v. Woods (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1570,
1586–1588 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 231] [aider and abettor may be found guilty of second
degree murder under doctrine of natural and probable consequences although the
principal was convicted of ﬁrst degree murder].)
Speciﬁc Intent—Non-Target Crimes
Before an aider and abettor may be found guilty of a speciﬁc intent crime under
the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the jury must ﬁrst ﬁnd that the
CALCRIM No. 402 AIDING AND ABETTING