California Penal Code §31 — Principals — Aiding and Abetting
PC §31 defines who is a principal in a California crime. It reaches everyone who directly commits the offense AND everyone who aids and abets its commission — with equal punishment. §31 is not a standalone offense; it is a theory of criminal liability. An aider and abettor is prosecuted for, and receives the same sentence as, the underlying substantive crime (murder, robbery, assault, etc.).
Reviewed by Daniel S. Rubin, CA Bar 302093 · Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney · Principals — Aiding and Abetting Cases in All LA County Courts
01 — Quick Facts
PC §31 — Principals — Aiding and Abetting at a Glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Full Name | California Penal Code §31 — Principals in Crime / Aiding and Abetting |
| Code Type | Penal Code (PC) |
| Type | Liability theory — not a standalone offense |
| Punishment | Same as underlying offense — aider and abettor punished as principal |
| Governing Case | People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547 |
| Natural & Probable Consequences | Restricted after SB 1437 (2018) and Chiu (2014) for murder |
| Withdrawal Defense | Available before commission with effective communication |
| Strike / Immigration | Follows the underlying offense |
| SB 1437 Resentencing | PC §1170.95 / §1172.6 available for prior felony-murder / NPC murder convictions |
| Free Consultation | (213) 723-2337 — 24/7 |
01 — What Is PC §31?
What Is California Penal Code §31?
PC §31 Reads:
"All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, persons who are mentally incapacitated, ... or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed."
— California Penal Code §31
PC §31 abolished the common-law distinction between principals and accessories before the fact. In California, everyone who participates in a crime is a principal — the direct perpetrator, the person who aids and abets, and the person who advises or encourages. All are punished identically for the underlying offense.
The Beeman Standard
People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547 is the controlling test. Aiding and abetting requires (1) knowledge of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose; (2) specific intent of encouraging, facilitating, or instigating the offense; and (3) an act or advice that in fact promotes or encourages commission. Mere knowledge, presence, or failure to prevent the crime is not enough.
PC §31 — Principal / Aider and Abettor
Present or actively assisting during commission with shared intent. Punished as principal — same sentence as direct perpetrator.
PC §32 — Accessory After the Fact
Assistance provided AFTER the crime is complete, with knowledge, to help the perpetrator escape or avoid conviction. Wobbler — separate offense with much lesser penalty.
Why §31 Matters
§31 is the most important charging theory in California criminal law. Getaway drivers, lookouts, financiers, planners, and encouragers face the same punishment as the person who pulls the trigger. Because §31 exposes non-triggering defendants to life sentences in homicide cases, the elements — particularly the specific-intent requirement — are the most heavily litigated in California criminal practice. Recent legislation (SB 1437, SB 775) has substantially narrowed §31 liability for murder by eliminating natural-and-probable-consequences and non-major-participant felony-murder theories.
Official Sources
02 — Elements of the Crime
Elements the Prosecution Must Prove Under PC §31
To convict on an aiding-and-abetting theory under PC §31, the prosecution must prove each Beeman element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perpetrator's Unlawful Purpose Known
The aider-abettor must know that the direct perpetrator intends to commit the target offense.
Specific Intent to Aid, Encourage, or Facilitate
The defendant must share the perpetrator's criminal intent — with the specific intent that the crime be committed and that the defendant's own conduct encourage or facilitate it.
Act or Advice Promoting Commission
The defendant must have done some act or given some advice that in fact promoted, encouraged, or facilitated the commission of the crime.
Substantive Offense Occurred
The underlying substantive offense must have been committed. If the target crime was not completed, §31 liability requires attempt or conspiracy analysis instead.
04 — Penalties
Penalties for PC §31 Principals — Aiding and Abetting in California
PC §31 liability carries the same penalty as the underlying substantive offense.
| Charge | Code | Prison Term | Probation | Strike |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aiding & Abetting Murder (§31 / §187) | PC §31 / §187 | 15 to life (2nd degree) / 25 to life (1st degree) / LWOP / death | None on 1st-degree murder | Yes |
| Aiding & Abetting Robbery (§31 / §211) | PC §31 / §211 | 2, 3, or 5 years (2nd deg) / 3, 6, or 9 years (1st deg) | Rare | Yes |
| Aiding & Abetting Assault w/ Deadly Weapon (§31 / §245(a)(1)) | PC §31 / §245(a)(1) | 2, 3, or 4 years (wobbler) | Available | Yes if GBI |
| Aiding & Abetting DUI (§31 / §23152) | PC §31 / VC §23152 | Up to 6 months county jail (misdemeanor) | Standard | No |
Related Doctrines & Limitations
Natural & Probable Consequences (Post-Chiu)
People v. Chiu (2014)
Aider-abettor liability for first-degree premeditated murder under a natural-and-probable-consequences theory was abolished by Chiu (2014). SB 1437 (2018) later abolished all natural-and-probable-consequences liability for murder.
SB 1437 / §1172.6 Resentencing
PC §1172.6
Persons convicted of murder under natural-and-probable-consequences or non-major-participant felony-murder theories may petition for resentencing under §1172.6.
Withdrawal Defense
CALCRIM 401
An aider-abettor can withdraw before the crime by (1) notifying the perpetrator of withdrawal and (2) doing everything reasonably possible to prevent commission.
Beyond the Sentence
- Same immigration, licensing, and firearm consequences as the underlying offense
- Strike consequences follow the underlying offense
- Enhancements (§12022, §12022.53, §186.22) apply where personally used / personally armed by the aider — but personal-use enhancements require personal conduct by the individual defendant
- Federal parallel: 18 U.S.C. §2 (aiding and abetting) mirrors §31
- SB 1437 / §1172.6 resentencing available for older felony-murder / NPC murder convictions
Sentencing References
05 — Defense Strategies
How Rubin Law Defends PC §31 Principals — Aiding and Abetting Charges
Rubin Law, P.C. attacks the elements of §31 aiding-and-abetting liability under Beeman and its progeny.
Mere Presence Insufficient
Presence at the scene — even repeated, and even with knowledge of the perpetrator's intent — is not aiding and abetting under People v. Nguyen (1993). The People must prove an affirmative act of encouragement or facilitation.
Nguyen (1993)
No Shared Specific Intent
Beeman requires the aider-abettor share the perpetrator's specific intent. Where the defendant participated under a false or lesser understanding of purpose, the specific-intent element fails.
Beeman (1984)
Withdrawal
A defense of withdrawal defeats liability when the defendant (1) notified the perpetrator and (2) did everything reasonably possible to prevent the crime. Effective communication is the linchpin.
CALCRIM 401
Duress or Necessity
Where the defendant participated under threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury from a third party, PC §26 duress is a defense — except to murder.
PC §26
SB 1437 / §1172.6 Resentencing
For older murder convictions based on natural-and-probable-consequences or non-major-participant felony-murder theories, Rubin Law files §1172.6 resentencing petitions.
PC §1172.6
Attack the Underlying Crime
If the underlying substantive offense fails, §31 liability fails. Rubin Law attacks the substantive elements first — every failure of the underlying offense is a failure of §31 liability.
PC §31
Enhancement Personal-Use Attack
Personal-use / personal-armed enhancements (§12022, §12022.53) require the individual defendant's personal conduct. An aider-abettor cannot receive a personal-use enhancement based on the perpetrator's conduct alone (except in gang-related §12022.53 shooter-turned-aider cases).
PC §12022 / §12022.53
Constitutional Sources
07 — Court Process
How PC §31 Principals — Aiding and Abetting Cases Move Through Los Angeles Courts
§31 aiding-and-abetting liability shapes every stage of a multi-defendant California case.
- 1
Step 1 — Investigation
Multi-defendant investigations routinely name a range of participants under an aiding-and-abetting theory. Do not give voluntary statements — police often use §31 exposure to leverage cooperation.
- 2
Step 2 — Filing / Arraignment
The DA charges each defendant with the substantive offense. §31 is not separately pleaded — it is embedded in the substantive-offense count.
- 3
Step 3 — Discovery & Multi-Defendant Coordination
Rubin Law coordinates with co-defendants where interests align, and severs where they conflict. Bruton motions, joint-defense agreements, and severance motions under PC §1098 are common.
- 4
Step 4 — Preliminary Hearing / Grand Jury
The People must show a strong suspicion of Beeman aiding-and-abetting on each defendant. Rubin Law litigates the specific-intent element aggressively at prelim to secure dismissal or reduction.
- 5
Step 5 — Jury Instructions
CALCRIM 400 / 401 govern aiding-and-abetting instructions. Rubin Law drafts pinpoint instructions on mere presence, withdrawal, and specific intent.
- 6
Step 6 — Resolution
Outcomes range from severance and separate trials to negotiated pleas to accessory (§32), attempt (§664), or lesser included offenses.
Los Angeles Courts That Handle PC §31 Principals — Aiding and Abetting Cases
§31 liability is a theory applied in every California courthouse.
Reviewed by Your Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin — Los Angeles Principals — Aiding and Abetting Defense Attorney
Daniel S. Rubin has defended clients charged with principals — aiding and abetting and related offenses in Los Angeles County courts — including Clara Shortridge Foltz, Van Nuys, Compton, and Pomona. He understands that these cases are won in the details: the suppression hearing that eliminates key evidence, the preliminary hearing cross-examination that exposes a weak witness, the penalty phase argument that keeps a client out of the worst outcome.
This page was written and reviewed by Daniel A. Rubin, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, CA State Bar 302093, with 10+ years of experience defending clients charged under PC §31 in Los Angeles County. Last reviewed: July 2026.
CA Bar 302093 | Whittier Law School | Rising Star — Super Lawyers 2019–2023 | Principals — Aiding and Abetting Cases Throughout LA County
See our full Principals — Aiding and Abetting defense practice
09 — FAQs
PC §31 Principals — Aiding and Abetting Questions — Los Angeles
What is PC §31?
PC §31 defines who is a 'principal' in a California crime. It abolishes the common-law distinction between direct perpetrators and accessories before the fact — everyone who commits, aids and abets, or advises and encourages the offense is a principal, and all are punished identically.
Is §31 a separate crime?
No. §31 is a theory of liability, not a standalone offense. An aider-abettor is charged with — and receives the same sentence as — the underlying substantive offense (murder, robbery, assault, etc.).
What is required to convict as an aider-abettor?
Under People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, the People must prove (1) knowledge of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose; (2) specific intent of encouraging, facilitating, or instigating the offense; and (3) an act or advice that in fact promoted or encouraged commission.
Is mere presence enough for §31 liability?
No. People v. Nguyen (1993) makes clear that mere presence at the scene — even with knowledge of the crime — is not aiding and abetting. The People must prove an affirmative act of encouragement or facilitation.
Can I withdraw from aiding a crime?
Yes, before commission. The withdrawal defense requires (1) notifying the perpetrator of withdrawal and (2) doing everything reasonably possible to prevent commission. See CALCRIM 401.
Does SB 1437 apply to §31 murder convictions?
Yes. SB 1437 (2018) and SB 775 (2021) eliminated natural-and-probable-consequences aiding-and-abetting liability for murder and narrowed felony-murder to major participants who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Prior convictions can be challenged via PC §1172.6 resentencing petition.
What is the difference between §31 and §32?
§31 covers principals — participation during or before commission with shared intent. §32 covers accessories after the fact — assistance AFTER the crime with knowledge, to help the perpetrator escape or avoid conviction. §31 carries the full penalty of the underlying crime; §32 is a wobbler with much lower exposure.
Available 24/7 — Free Consultation
Charged as a Principal or Aider-Abettor Under PC §31?
§31 exposes non-triggering defendants to the full penalty of the underlying crime — including life sentences in murder cases. Rubin Law, P.C. defends multi-defendant felonies and files SB 1437 / §1172.6 resentencing petitions.