Can a lookout be convicted of aiding and abetting murder in the second degree?

elements for first degree have not, then it is second degree." Villarreal contends the jury question demonstrated the need for additional instructions, citing People v. Woods (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1570 (Woods). In Woods, two defendants went looking for a rival; while one served as a lookout, the other assaulted two women in an attempt to find the rival's whereabouts and, not having found the rival, shot and killed an innocent bystander. (Id. at p. 1577.) Both men were convicted of first degree murder. (Ibid.) The jury asked during deliberations whether the lookout could be found guilty of aiding and abetting murder in the second degree if the actual perpetrator was found guilty of the same murder in the first degree and the trial court incorrectly replied, "No." (Id. at p. 1579.) On appeal, this court concluded the jury might have returned a verdict of first degree murder for the lookout only to avoid absolving him of the consequences of aiding and abetting the assaults. (Id. at p. 1590.) Criticizing this "unwarranted all-or-nothing choice," this court said the jury "should have been told it could find a defendant guilty of second degree murder as an aider and abettor even if it determined the perpetrator was guilty of first degree murder." (Ibid.) This court concluded, "the jury must be permitted to consider uncharged, necessarily included offenses where the facts would support a determination that the greater crime was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence but the lesser offense was such a consequence." (Id. at p. 1588.)