People v. Brice

BRAUER J., Concurring.

At trial, the defendants demanded accessory-after-the-fact instructions, as was their right under [People v.] Geiger *117[(1984) 35 Cal.3d 510 (199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303, 50 A.L.R. 4th 1055)]. When the jury convicted them of that offense, they garnered an unexpected windfall: they escaped scot-free on that charge because the statute of limitations had run.

Following People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263 [152 Cal.Rptr. 354, 643 P.2d 971], we hold that other defendants will not benefit from that windfall because a trial court need and should not instruct on a lesser…