# People v. Beeman

> California Supreme Court · February 6, 1984 · 35 Cal. 3d 547

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582035

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY MARK BEEMAN, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 6, 1984
- **Citations:** 35 Cal. 3d 547; 199 Cal. Rptr. 60; 674 P.2d 1318; 1984 Cal. LEXIS 153
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Richardson
- **Judges:** Reynoso, Richardson
- **Cited by:** 666 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582035

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that defendant is liable under aiding and abetting the- ory if he “act[ed] with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of com- mitting, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense”
- holding that defendant is liable under aiding and abetting theory if he “act[ed] with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense”
- stating that accomplice liability extends to the natural and reasonable consequences of the acts that the accessory knowingly and intentionally aids and encourages

## Opinion text

RICHARDSON, J. † Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the court’s conclusion that the jury instructions given in this case were inadequate because they failed to inform the jury that appellant could be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime only if he acted with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging or facilitating the commission thereof.
I respectfully dissent, however, from the reversal of appellant’s conviction. The verdicts clearly demonstrated that the jury disbelieved the testimony of appellant which would have supported a finding that he did not have the requisite criminal intent. Further, the record amply supports the conclusion that appellant acted knowingly and intentionally in encouraging and facilitating the commission of the offenses. Accordingly, the trial court’s error in refusing to give the modified instruction sought by appellant was harmless and the conviction should be affirmed. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].)
Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582035. Public record. Not legal advice.