GlockTalk Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Ba-nan-nah-nuh
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here's how it WAS:
Penal Code 31 PC (California's aiding and abetting law) reads: "All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, . . . are principals in any crime so committed."

"Aiding and abetting" (also sometimes called "accomplice liability") is not a separate crime. Rather, it's a legal principle set forth in California's Penal Code that allows the state to prosecute everyone who is "in on" a crime--even if they don't perpetrate the crime directly.

I heard it on The John & Ken Show on KFI Radio Stream on iHeart Radio app this afternoon, but held back from posting - but after I didn't see the subject come up - here's a late post....... sorry if I somehow missed the post or if it happened already.

BUT ---> PC31 is going to be removed from the California Penal Code; (and yeah - I still listen to SoCal radio just to see how far off normal it can go - California, that is).

Comments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,967 Posts
As long as it does not affect the rational States in America all is good.
I hate saying it, but I agree. Any free thinking person who hasn't fled that state yet.. it's just hard for me to have much sympathy.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
63,390 Posts
Here's how it WAS:
Penal Code 31 PC (California's aiding and abetting law) reads: "All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, . . . are principals in any crime so committed."

"Aiding and abetting" (also sometimes called "accomplice liability") is not a separate crime. Rather, it's a legal principle set forth in California's Penal Code that allows the state to prosecute everyone who is "in on" a crime--even if they don't perpetrate the crime directly.

I heard it on The John & Ken Show on KFI Radio Stream on iHeart Radio app this afternoon, but held back from posting - but after I didn't see the subject come up - here's a late post....... sorry if I somehow missed the post or if it happened already.

BUT ---> PC31 is going to be removed from the California Penal Code; (and yeah - I still listen to SoCal radio just to see how far off normal it can go - California, that is).

Comments?
I seriously doubt that's true. Even California lawmakers couldn't be that stupid.

Hypothetical example: Let's say 4 guys, maybe wearing the masks of ex-presidents, go to rob a bank. Let's say the guy in the Ronald Reagan mask is the getaway driver and keeps the car running out front. The guy in the Jimmy Carter mask points a gun at the teller and tells her to give him all of the money. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon have guns and watch the customers for Jimmy. Without the basic legal principle of complicity, only Jimmy Carter can be convicted of the armed robbery. LBJ and Nixon may only be guilty of carrying the guns without a permit, or brandishing them, or some such. Ronald Reagan, out in the car, probably hasn't even committed a crime or, at worst, has committed a lesser offense like facilitation of the robbery, rather than robbery itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,838 Posts
I seriously doubt that's true. Even California lawmakers couldn't be that stupid.

Hypothetical example: Let's say 4 guys, maybe wearing the masks of ex-presidents, go to rob a bank. Let's say the guy in the Ronald Reagan mask is the getaway driver and keeps the car running out front. The guy in the Jimmy Carter mask points a gun at the teller and tells her to give him all of the money. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon have guns and watch the customers for Jimmy. Without the basic legal principle of complicity, only Jimmy Carter can be convicted of the armed robbery. LBJ and Nixon may only be guilty of carrying the guns without a permit, or brandishing them, or some such. Ronald Reagan, out in the car, probably hasn't even committed a crime or, at worst, has committed a lesser offense like facilitation of the robbery, rather than robbery itself.
There is still 182PC Conspiracy for that.

31PC is more for momma hiding Jr after the fact. You could charge her with 148PC, Delay, obstuct, resist an officer or maybe 182PC.

In your example they would all be charged with 182 and 211 (robbery).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,992 Posts
Gee, CA gets rid of that and any laws that are similar to aiding and abetting, it makes lives better for their protected friends such as MS-13 and cartel scum. Wouldn't want to offend more of those charming "undocumented immigrants".

CA, working hard to flush itself down the toilet. Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
914 Posts
I seriously doubt that's true. Even California lawmakers couldn't be that stupid.

Hypothetical example: Let's say 4 guys, maybe wearing the masks of ex-presidents, go to rob a bank. Let's say the guy in the Ronald Reagan mask is the getaway driver and keeps the car running out front. The guy in the Jimmy Carter mask points a gun at the teller and tells her to give him all of the money. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon have guns and watch the customers for Jimmy. Without the basic legal principle of complicity, only Jimmy Carter can be convicted of the armed robbery. LBJ and Nixon may only be guilty of carrying the guns without a permit, or brandishing them, or some such. Ronald Reagan, out in the car, probably hasn't even committed a crime or, at worst, has committed a lesser offense like facilitation of the robbery, rather than robbery itself.
But the real question would be if the investigating agent is a college football star. And can he learn to surf well enough to fit into the group and catch them in the act.
 

·
PSO Survivor. currently in NW Georgia
Joined
·
9,689 Posts
I hate saying it, but I agree. Any free thinking person who hasn't fled that state yet.. it's just hard for me to have much sympathy.
Agreed +2...time to just cut our losses and forget about the state...sad, as there are undoubtedly many fine folks who live there but are unable to flee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,838 Posts
I hate saying it, but I agree. Any free thinking person who hasn't fled that state yet.. it's just hard for me to have much sympathy.
Why it will just end up there too.

Plenty of Texans talking about how the state may go blue soon.
 

·
Ba-nan-nah-nuh
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
A follow up this AM on The Bill Handel Show on KFI I once again.......

Any persons currently incarcerated at this moment ------ who are in prison because of PC 31----- will have their cases of imprisonment re-investigated. This should empty the prisons, flood the appellate system and generally create mayhem in police apprehensions in the future.

"But officer..... i was only reloading the Kalashnikov that was used during (enter crime of your choice here) ..... I didn't actually shoot it!"

The inmates are running Sacramento.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,159 Posts
Where is this info coming from, other than a talk show? I couldn't find anything looking for legislative changes online, yet. Nothing about changes to CA's PC31 in the general news.

Maybe they were trying to figure out how to discuss SB-1437 Accomplice Liability for felony murder in the 2017/2018 session?

You can read about it at this link, and get a better explanation of the reason behind it if you go to the headings and click the link of Bill Analysis, to open a .pdf link.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1437

You can also click on the Text heading to read the actual bill.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1437
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bruce M

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,309 Posts
What's the legal difference between an accomplice and a co-conspirator?

If I plan the robbery, but don't go, am I an accomplice or a co-conspirator?

If I supply the guns and car used in the robbery, but I don't know it's going to be a robbery - I just think the boys are going shooting in the country in their ski-masks - am I an accomplice or co-conspirator?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,838 Posts
What's the legal difference between an accomplice and a co-conspirator?

If I plan the robbery, but don't go, am I an accomplice or a co-conspirator?

If I supply the guns and car used in the robbery, but I don't know it's going to be a robbery - I just think the boys are going shooting in the country in their ski-masks - am I an accomplice or co-conspirator?
In California at least conspirators are those in the planning if a crime. Accomplices are aiding after the commission of a crime.

I think what fastbolt posted seems to indicate they are watering down who can take a ride for 1st degree murder. Wheel man may not be eligible for 1st degree murder if it was only supposed to be a robbery. That is if the law passes.
 

·
NRA4EVR
Joined
·
11,458 Posts
Much ado about little to nothing. Read the posted links to the actual bill. California is doing some stupid things but this is just meh.
 

·
Ba-nan-nah-nuh
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
[ibidem]: "This bill {SB1437} would provide a means of vacating the conviction and resentencing a defendant when a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the defendant that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of first degree felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the defendant was sentenced for first degree or 2nd degree murder or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the defendant could be convicted for first degree or 2nd degree murder, and the defendant could not be charged with murder after the enactment of this bill. By requiring the participation of district attorneys and public defenders in the resentencing process, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program"
{underscore and bold, mine}

[further]:
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The power to define crimes and fix penalties is vested exclusively in the Legislative branch.
(b) There is a need for statutory changes to more equitably sentence offenders in accordance with their involvement in homicides.
(c) In pursuit of this goal, in 2017, the Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 48 (Resolution Chapter 175, 2017–18 Regular Session), which outlines the need for the statutory changes contained in this measure.
(d) It is a bedrock principle of the law and of equity that a person should be punished for his or her actions according to his or her own level of individual culpability.
(e) Reform is needed in California to limit convictions and subsequent sentencing so that the law of California fairly addresses the culpability of the individual and assists in the reduction of prison overcrowding, which partially results from lengthy sentences that are not commensurate with the culpability of the individual."

{highlighted above, mine: and therein lies the turk in the works and does anyone see a problem here?

THINK:
court and the DA's case workload and the natural speed at which persons are locked up for their crime in the first place....... California DAs - and especially those who are lightyears behind on their cases are now instructed to re-review and drop charges from mere accomplices - and how many new DAs or DAAs are to be hired to complete this new ruling? For the record: none}

When/if this will release back onto the street(s) those who are now to be retried solely or only as lessers-to or accomplices-of and non-compliant assistants in murder or other felonious charges - imagine the new criminal mentality that will result in little - if NO time to be spent behind bars because they cannot be charged with a felony and therefor reduces fear of incarceration.

Anyone see a problem here?


FWIW: Bill Handel and John & Bob (both of KFI640 Los Angeles) are pushing hard against this new legislative mischief from Sacramento.

That Bill Handel is highlighting and protesting, is extremely rare - as I've listened to him for many years - and never ever heard him so adamant. This is almost earth-shacking to long time listeners of his shows as he promulgates political abstinence in his broadcast creedo.

Don't so easily dismiss these radio personalities - as they all have been hot button radio and not the typical scandal-sheet tripe.

And me? I'm just the messenger here ---> non germinat nuntius.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,159 Posts
Go to the links and read both the Assembly and the senate analysis, which contains some important background on why they desired to fine tune the felony murder rule.

"States such as Arkansas, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Hawaii, Michigan, and Ohio have narrowed the scope of what is known as the felony murder rule and limited the application of their murder statute. Ohio, for example, now requires that a killing that occurs during a felony must be an intentional killing in order to receive a first-degree murder conviction.
"SB 1437 clarifies that a person may only be convicted of murder if the individual willingly participated in an act that results in a homicide or that was clearly intended to result in a homicide."
Both of the published analyses contain some explanations and clarifications that are easier to read (for the politicians, but also for the rest of us). They're both worth reading if you want to understand the details of what it fully involves.

Yes, when it comes to the Fiscal Effects, the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis estimates that the general fund is going to have to pay probably millions of dollars for the courts to hold resentencing hearings, and for CDC (state prison system) to transport inmates to any such hearings.

There's also a cost estimate of $42,000 in 2018-19 and $84,000 in 2019-20 for the Department of Justice to handle an increase in the number of appeals related to resentencing requests and to update records to reflect resentencing changes.

Of course, there's also anticipated to be some significant savings for people no longer sentenced because of the change in the imputed malice provision of the older law.

Yes, there was some strong opposition voiced among associations for peace officers and DA's. (But they don't make the laws, and will enforce them as written, in any event.)

As just another private citizen nowadays, I tend to agree with ateamer's "meh" reaction to the revision.

As with the fine-tuning that was needed for the Three Strikes law, it was probably inevitable that the felony murder rule in CA was modified in some respects.

BTW, I still can't see where "PC 31 is being removed from the books".
 

·
Man, I'm Pretty
Joined
·
29,959 Posts
Clearly I have had too much to drink

I could have sworn the thread title was Pina Colada 31 PC being removed from the books. :freak:

Regards,
Happyguy :)
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top