Is a defendant who knowingly aids and abets criminal conduct guilty of not only the intended crime but also of any other crime the perpetrator actually commits as a result of the crime?

The bench notes to CALCRIM No. 400 state that the court should instruct with the bracketed language if the prosecution relies on a theory that any of the charged offenses were committed as a natural and probable consequence of a target offense. (See People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 161, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972 [ A person who knowingly aids and abets criminal conduct is guilty of not only the intended crime [target offense] but also of any other crime the perpetrator actually commits [nontarget offense] that is a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime ].)

The prosecution here did not rely on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, nor was there any evidence in this case that the perpetrator committed another crime that was a natural and probable consequence of the intended offense. The additional language thus amounted to an abstract instruction, i.e., one which is correct in law but irrelevant. [Citations.] Giving an instruction that is correct as to the law but irrelevant or inapplicable is error. [Citation.] Nonetheless, giving an irrelevant or inapplicable instruction is generally only a technical error which does not constitute ground for reversal. (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 373, 190 P.3d 706.) Such error does not implicate the defendant's constitutional rights and is subject to harmless error review under People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 837, 299 P.2d 243.