How have the courts interpreted the words "aiding and abetting" and "four theories" in the context of CALCRIM No. 521?

Nor can we conclude these prosecutorial misstatements were harmless. "When argument runs counter to instructions given a jury, we will ordinarily conclude that the jury followed the latter and disregarded the former, for '[w]e presume that jurors treat the court's instructions as a statement of the law by a judge, and the prosecutor's comments as words spoken by an advocate in an attempt to persuade.' [Citation.]" (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717, italics added.) Here, however, the correlated meaning of the quoted instructions is not in obvious conflict with the prosecutor's statements such that the jury was likely to have followed the former and disregarded the latter. This is especially true when one considers the fact that CALCRIM No. 521 also informed the jury Schoemig "has been prosecuted for first degree murder under four theories," one of which was "aiding and abetting." Aiding and abetting what the

Page 15