“in essence, holds that the Idaho Legislature can legislate away the rights of individuals protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Many jurisdictions have held that it is unnecessary to charge aiding and abetting in the charging document and that there is no due process violation when a court gives an aiding and abetting jury instruction even when aiding and abetting is not charged in the charging document. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia, 400 F.3d 816, 820 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We have also held a number of times in different contexts that aiding and abetting is embedded in every federal indictment for a substantive crime.”); United States v. Dodd, 43 F.3d 759, 762 n. 5 (1st Cir.1995) (stating it is not necessary to plead an aiding and abetting charge because that charge , 629 (1994) (<HOLDING>); People v. Rivera, 84 N.Y.2d 766, 622 N.Y.S.2d
holding that the trial courts order violated due process because it was unclear whether or not the defendant was required to appear on the date in question holding that jury charge in juvenile case warranted fundamentalerror review and analyzing whether charge violated due process holding that it violated due process for one adjudicator to act as grand jury and judge for same defendants holding defendants due process rights were not violated by a jury instruction on aiding and abetting it is unnecessary for the state to charge aiding and abetting in the charging document in order to pursue that theory at trial holding that a mandatory presumption in a jury charge which directed a finding on an element of the criminal offense violated the due process clause