Does a getaway driver continue to commit the crime of aiding and abetting by fleeing after the crime has been committed?

1 The district court's error may have been caused by its misapprehension of the applicable principles. Assisting bank robbers in making their escape, including flight in hot pursuit, clearly constitutes the crime of aiding and abetting a bank robbery. See United States v. Lovato, 740 F.2d 764 (9th Cir.1984). The district court so instructed the jury in this case, but added language which could be construed to mean that the defendant continued to commit the crime of aiding and abetting by evading arrest even after the bank robbers and money were no longer in his vehicle: "[I]f you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally aided the robbers by fleeing before the possibility of hot pursuit had ended, then you must find him guilty of aiding and abetting the robbery." R.T. 5/2/90, at 210-11 (emphasis added). There is no case law to support the notion that a getaway driver continues to commit the crime of aiding and abetting by fleeing after the principals and the fruits of their crime have left his vehicle.