Partyka v. Atty. Gen., __ F.3d __ (3rd Cir. Aug. 11, 2005) (aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer in the third degree, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:12-1b(5)(a), is not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude, where the statute may be committed with negligent intent). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/042804p.pdf

(New Mexico Penal Code 30-22-6.  Compounding a crime consists of knowingly agreeing to take anything of value upon the agreement or understanding, express or implied, to compound or conceal a crime or to abstain from a prosecution therefor, or to withhold any evidence thereof. For purposes of this section, a person may be prosecuted and convicted of compounding a crime though the person guilty of the original crime has not been charged, indicted or tried. Whoever commits compounding a crime is guilty of a misdemeanor)

Cuevas-Gaspar v. Ashcroft, 430 F.3d 1013, 1021 n.4 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2005) (court did not reach question whether Washington conviction of accomplice to residential burglary, under in violation of Washington Revised Code 9A.52.025(1), 9A.08.020(3) constituted crime involving moral turpitude because respondent did not argue accomplice conviction affected the determination whether the conviction constituted a crime of moral turpitude).

In Vidal the Court recognized that the California definition of aiding and abetting includes "encouragement," which in California includes "promotion and instigation." In California, A person may be considered an aider and abettor if he/she acts "with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose of either committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense." People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547, 560 (1984). See also, People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal. 4th 248 (1996).

The Ninth Circuit vacated its decision in Martinez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2004), vacated __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. August 3, 2005), in which the Court had wrongly assumed that since a co-defendant did not appear in the record of conviction, this necessarily meant that there was in fact no person whom the defendant may have aided and abetted in committing a theft offense. The in vacating the decision, the Court recognized that the California theft statute includes aiding and abetting offenses.

The sentencing guidelines for illegal reentry cases were amended on November 1, 2001 to add Application Note 4, which provided: "4. Aiding and Abetting, Conspiracies, and Attempts.--Prior convictions of offenses counted under subsection (b)(1) include the offenses of aiding and abetting, conspiring, and attempting, to commit such offenses." This Application Note was in effect until November 1, 2003, when it was deleted from the guideline commentary. USSG, 2L1.2, 18 U.S.C.A.

Altamirano v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2839982 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2005) (mere presence in vehicle at port of entry does not constitute alien smuggling under INA 212(a)(6)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), even if the individual has knowledge that an alien was hiding in the trunk of the vehicle; simple knowledge encouraging, inducing, assisting, abetting, or aiding is insufficient). See also, Tapucu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 736, 740-42 (6th Cir. 2005) (some affirmative act required).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0370737p.pdf

Martinez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2004) (record of conviction - i.e., the charge and the absence of any codefendants - negated the possibility the defendant was convicted on an aiding and abetting theory which renders the statute divisible), vacated __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. August 3, 2005). AIDING AND ABETTING

Immigration counsel can argue that a person convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of a deportable offense is not deportable unless the definition of aiding and abetting, under the law of the jurisdiction of conviction, is coextensive with the federal definition of aiding and abetting. For example, in California, a person can be convicted of aiding and abetting on the basis of mere encouragement, even if no actual assistance is provided. This form of aiding a theft offense has been held insufficient to constitute a theft offense aggravated felony. United States v.

Penuliar v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005), carries the torch lit by United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir.