Background

• Delgado convicted of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)) based on evidence suggesting an accomplice, not Delgado, performed asportation.
• Perez testified Delgado helped abduct/rob in a moving vehicle; Delgado’s accomplice was driving and locking doors during the drive.
• The jury was instructed on kidnapping elements—force, detention, and asportation—but no aiding-and-abetting instructions were given.
• Prosecutor argued Delgado acted with the other driver to kidnap and rob; defense argued Delgado did not cause asportation.
• Court of Appeal affirmed; trial court’s omission of complicity instructions was deemed error but harmless under state law and not constitutionally prejudicial.
• Majority concludes substantial evidence supported accomplice liability and the omission was actionable under Prettyman, McCoy, and related authorities, but harmless in light of strong circumstantial evidence.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (Cal. 1996) (general principles of law closely connected to the facts; aiding/abetting needed when raised by evidence)
• People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001) (overlaps between actual perpetration and aiding and abetting when multiple acts occur)
• People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.3d 1158 (Cal. 1991) (definition of aiding and abetting liability)
• People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 (Cal. 1984) (incomplete instruction on complicity may be defective)
• In re Michele D., 29 Cal.4th 600 (Cal. 2002) (asportation and force/means in kidnapping—context for liability)
• Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (omission of an element instruction and due-process implications)
• Sakarias, 22 Cal.4th 596 (Cal. 2000) (federal due-process standards for instructional error)
• Cook v. Lamarque, 239 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (federal decisions discussed regarding accomplice liability)
• People v. Cook, 61 Cal.App.4th 1364 (Cal. App. 1998) (appellate decision on aiding and abetting instructions)