Facts
- Larry Cooper drove two companions to a shopping center parking lot.
- The companions assaulted an 89-year-old shopper, took his wallet, and ran back to Cooper’s car.
- Cooper drove the companions away from the scene.
- The prosecution charged Cooper as a principal to robbery under an aiding-and-abetting theory (Cal. Penal Code § 31), alleging he acted as the getaway driver with intent to facilitate the robbery.
- Cooper argued he lacked advance knowledge of the robbery and, at most, assisted only after the robbery was complete, making him an accessory after the fact (Cal. Penal Code § 32).
- A jury convicted Cooper of robbery as an aider and abettor; the trial court imposed probation, county jail time, and a fine.
- The Court of Appeal reversed based on instructional error regarding when robbery ends; the California Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
- For aiding-and-abetting liability, how long does the “commission” of robbery continue—does it include escape/asportation to a place of temporary safety?
- May a getaway driver be convicted as an aider and abettor if the driver forms the intent to assist only during the escape, rather than before the initial taking?
- Whether the trial court’s instructions improperly permitted aiding-and-abetting liability even if the driver formed the requisite intent only after the robbers had reached a place of temporary safety.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court held that, for aiding-and-abetting purposes, robbery continues through the asportation phase while the property is carried away to a place of temporary safety.
- The court held a defendant may be liable as an aider and abettor if the intent to aid or encourage forms before or during that asportation, but not after the robbers have reached temporary safety.
- The court agreed the jury instructions were erroneous because they could be read to allow conviction even if Cooper’s intent formed only after asportation had ended.
- The court reversed the Court of Appeal to the extent it treated robbery as complete at the initial taking, while still recognizing instructional error and addressing harmlessness in light of the evidence.
Legal Principles
- Robbery is not complete for aiding-and-abetting analysis at the initial taking; it continues until the carrying away of the property ends at a place of temporary safety.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability requires knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose, intent to facilitate or encourage the crime, and acts that aid, promote, or instigate its commission; in robbery, the required intent must exist before or during asportation to temporary safety.
- A person who assists during escape before temporary safety is reached may be a principal under Penal Code § 31; assistance only after that point supports, at most, accessory-after-the-fact liability under Penal Code § 32.
- Jury instructions on a getaway driver’s liability must tie aider-and-abettor intent to the period before or during asportation to a place of temporary safety.
Conclusion
The court clarified that robbery, for aider-and-abetting purposes, continues through escape while the loot is carried to a place of temporary safety, allowing principal liability for a getaway driver who forms intent during that period, but requiring instructions that exclude liability when intent arises only after temporary safety is reached.