People v. Beeman
Supreme Court of California
35 Cal.3d 547, 674 P.2d 1318 (1984)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
James Gray and Michael Burk robbed Timothy Beeman’s sister-in-law. Beeman (defendant) was charged with aiding and abetting Gray and Burk in the robbery. Gray and Burk testified that Beeman was involved in planning the robbery, including them giving information about the layout of the victim’s house, what was inside, what to wear to be able to talk their way in, and agreeing to sell some of the stolen goods. Beeman testified that although he did give some of this information, he did not do so with an intent that Gray and Burk commit the crime. He also testified that when he was told about the robbery plan, he told Gray that he did not want to be involved. In fact, Gray’s testimony confirmed that Beeman had said before the robbery that he did not want to be a part of it. Finally, although Beeman was found with missing jewelry, he claimed that he had only taken possession of it in order to return it to his sister-in-law. Also, information from Beeman led to the initial arrest of Gray and Burk. However, Beeman was convicted of aiding and abetting Gray and Burk in the robbery. Beeman appealed on the grounds that the jury instruction did not include a requirement that Beeman intended his actions would aid in the commission of the robbery.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reynoso, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
