Does the Attorney General's closing argument demonstrate that defendant was tried on a direct aider and abettor theory?

The Attorney General next contends that the prosecutor's closing argument demonstrates that defendant was tried on a direct aider and abettor theory.^[3] We disagree. As part of his closing argument, the prosecutor stated: "Let me put it to you simply. This is a first degree murder. No question about it. First degree execution homicide. [] I don't have to get into all the instructions, and I don't choose to get into [a] lecture on homicide and murder. This is a first degree murder or it is nothing." The prosecutor continued: "This is not second degree murder, this is not manslaughter, this is not anything other than murder first. This is execution homicide, ladies and gentlemen. He put three into her when she's on the ground."^[4] This argument, however, does not refute our conclusion that, on this record, the jury could have convicted defendant under a natural and probable consequences theory. (See People v. Morales (2001) 25 Cal.4th 34, 47 ["we presume that the jury relied on the instructions, not the arguments, in convicting defendant"].)