What is the burden of proving an aider and abettor in a murder case?

Defendant cites the rule that conviction as an aider and abettor requires proof that the aider and abettor had knowledge of the intent and criminal purpose of the perpetrator. (See People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 555.) Then, relying on that rule, defendant contends that section 12022.53, subdivision (e) violates due process by imposing vicarious liability to increase the sentence of the aider and abettor without proof that he knew or intended that the perpetrator would commit homicide by the use or discharge of a firearm. Without further discussion, defendant concludes that the statute therefore violates due process, citing In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358 [due process requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary constituting the crime], and Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975) 421 U.S. 684 [prosecution's burden to negate heat of passion].