New January 2006; Revised June 2007, April 2010, February 2015
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on aiding and abetting when the
prosecution relies on it as a theory of culpability. (People v. Beeman (1984) 35
Cal.3d 547, 560–561 [199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318].)
The court has a sua sponte duty to identify and instruct on any target offense
relied on by the prosecution as a predicate offense when substantial evidence
supports the theory. Give all relevant instructions on the alleged target offense or
offenses. The court, however, does not have to instruct on all potential target
offenses supported by the evidence if the prosecution does not rely on those
offenses. (People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 267–268 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d
827, 926 P.2d 1013]; see People v. Huynh (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 662, 677–678
[121 Cal.Rptr.2d 340] [no sua sponte duty to instruct on simple assault when
prosecutor never asked court to consider it as target offense].)
The target offense is the crime that the accused parties intended to commit. The
non-target is an additional unintended crime that occurs during the commission of
Do not give the ﬁrst bracketed paragraph in cases in which the prosecution is also
pursuing a conspiracy theory.
Give the bracketed paragraph beginning, “Do not consider evidence of defendant’s
intoxication” when instructing on aiding and abetting liability for a non-target
offense. (People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1134 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959
Give CALCRIM No. 400, Aiding and Abetting: General Principles, and
CALCRIM No. 401, Aiding and Abetting: Intended Crimes, before this instruction.
This instruction should be used when the prosecution relies on the natural and
probable consequences doctrine and charges only non-target crimes. If both target
and non-target crimes are charged, give CALCRIM No. 402, Natural and Probable
Consequences Doctrine (Target and Non-Target Offenses Charged).
• 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].
• No Unanimity Required. People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 267–268
[58 Cal.Rptr.2d 827, 926 P.2d 1013].
• Presence or Knowledge Insufficient. People v. Boyd (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d
541, 557 fn. 14 [271 Cal.Rptr. 738]; In re Michael T. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d
AIDING AND ABETTING CALCRIM No. 403