How has the court interpreted the word "premeditated" before murder in a premeditated murder case?

favorable result if the instruction had been worded as defendant now contends it should have been. Overwhelming evidence established defendant's guilt of premeditated murder either as a direct perpetrator or as an aider and abettor who knew and shared the direct perpetrator's intent to kill. Defendant admitted that he was one of the men who "shanked" Huerta; Huerta was not a bystander, he was the intended victim of the attack; the meeting of the SUV with the gold car and the telephone call suggest premeditation; and the multiple stabbings suggest premeditation and an intent to kill. (See People v. Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 247.) We conclude that the trial court was not required to insert "premeditated" before murder in CALJIC No. 3.02; and that had its omission been error, it would have been harmless. (See People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836.)