California Supreme Court· 6/20/2005

People v. Perez

Citations

113 P.3d 100
29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423
35 Cal. 4th 1219
2005 Daily Journal DAR 7302
2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5336
2005 Cal. LEXIS 6565

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

identifying three elements to establish aiding and abetting: “(a) the direct perpetrator’s actus reus— a crime committed by the direct perpetrator, (b
identifying three elements to establish aiding and abetting: “(a) the direct perpetrator’s actus reus— a crime committed by the direct perpetrator, (b
noting a person cannot aid and abet 12 TAYLOR V. CATE himself
“[A]bsent proof of a predicate offense, . . . an aiding and 3 abetting theory cannot be sustained.”
“absent proof of a predicate offense, . . . an aiding 13 and abetting theory cannot be sustained”
“[F]or a defendant to be found guilty under an aiding and abetting theory, someone other than the defendant must be proven to have attempted or committed a crime; i.e., absent proof of a predicate offense, conviction on an aiding and abetting theory cannot be sustained.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Werdegar, Brown

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

47 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.