CALCRIM Jury Instruction 401 - Interpretation

In People v. Stallworth (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1079, the appellant argued that CALCRIM No. 401 is constitutionally deficient because it does not explicitly state that mere presence or knowledge is insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability. The Stallworth court disagreed because CALCRIM No. 401 states: "'However, the fact that a person is present at the scene of a crime or fails to prevent the crime does not, by itself, make him or her an aider and abettor.'" (Stallworth, supra, at p. 1103.) Further, CALCRIM No. 401 explains that the People must prove that the perpetrator committed the crime, the defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, prior to or during the crime the defendant intended to aid or abet the perpetrator in committing the crime, and the defendant's words or conduct did in fact aid or abet the perpetrator's commission of the crime. (Ibid.) In the view of Stallworth, CALCRIM No. 401 clearly established that knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime was only one of four elements for a finding of liability. (Ibid.)