Wrong Place, Wrong Time: How California Law Treats Guilt by Association

By

People are arrested every day because of where they were or who they were with: a passenger in a car where drugs are found, a friend at a party where a fight breaks out, a relative of someone under investigation. Being nearby is not a crime. California law requires much more before anyone can be convicted.

Mere presence is not enough

Under Penal Code § 31, a person who aids and abets a crime can be guilty as a principal. But jurors are instructed that presence at the scene, or failing to stop a crime, does not by itself make someone an aider and abettor (CALCRIM No. 401). The prosecution must prove that the person knew the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, intended to help, and actually did something to aid, promote, encourage or instigate it.

Possession requires knowledge and control

When drugs, a firearm or stolen property is found in a shared car, room or apartment, the prosecution often argues “constructive possession.” That theory still requires proof that you knew the item was there, knew what it was, and had the right to control it. Proximity alone, such as sitting next to a bag or living in a house where something is found, does not prove those elements.

Conspiracy requires an agreement

A criminal conspiracy under Penal Code § 182 requires an agreement to commit a crime, a specific intent to commit it, and, under § 184, an overt act by at least one member to carry it out. Friendship, family ties, or being seen with people who later commit a crime do not prove an agreement. Federal conspiracy law (for example, 18 U.S.C. § 371) also requires an agreement, and some federal drug conspiracies do not require an overt act at all, which makes the “agreement” element especially important to contest.

California narrowed felony murder

For years, someone who took part in a robbery or burglary could be convicted of murder if a co-participant killed someone, even without intending a death. Senate Bill 1437 (2018) changed that by amending Penal Code §§ 188 and 189. Today, a participant who was not the actual killer generally must have intended to kill, or have been a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. People convicted under the old rules may be able to seek resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.6.

Gang allegations

Gang enhancements under Penal Code § 186.22 can add years to a sentence. Assembly Bill 333 (2021) made them harder to prove, including by requiring that the benefit to the gang be more than reputational. Knowing gang members, living in a neighborhood, or wearing certain clothing does not establish the enhancement.

How these cases are defended

  • Separate the facts from the assumptions. What did you actually do, say or know? Often the honest answer is “nothing,” and the evidence shows it.
  • Test the timeline. Phone records, location data and video can show when you arrived, when you left, and where you were.
  • Challenge statements. Co-defendants sometimes shift blame to get a better deal. Their credibility and motives are fair game on cross-examination.
  • Do not explain yourself to police. People who were truly uninvolved often talk at length, and fragments of what they say are used against them. Ask for a lawyer first.

If you were charged because of someone else’s conduct, attorney Vikas Bajaj can review what the prosecution can actually prove. See our office’s pages on criminal conspiracy defense and drug crimes.

This article is general information about California and federal law, not legal advice for your situation. Laws change, and the right answer depends on your facts. Written by attorney Vikas Bajaj, Law Office of Vikas Bajaj, APC, San Diego.