How have the courts interpreted the specific intent instructions under the standard aiding and abetting instructions?

Defendant next claims the specific intent instructions under the standard aiding and abetting jury instructions were insufficient in this case where he was charged with first degree murder and first degree attempted murder. He argues the court should have supplemented the standard aiding and abetting instructions and informed the jury that defendant had to personally premeditate and deliberate the murder and attempted murder. Defendant did not challenge the relevant instructions in the trial court proceedings. (People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego) [party forfeits challenge to instructions that correctly state the law even if the instructions are misleading in the particular case].) We nevertheless address the merits because defendant contends the alleged error affected his substantial rights. The court did not err; it provided the appropriate instructions. And even if we assume the instructions were somehow confusing, any error was harmless.