What is the test for a jury to determine whether a defendant was a co-defendant with the intent to assist in a crime?

We adhere to the views we expressed in Lopez (which rejected contrary views expressed in People v. Nero (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 504, relied on by defendants herein) and conclude the claim has been forfeited.¹⁶

Page 24

Moreover, the trial court instructed each jury with CALCRIM No. 401, which told each jury that aider liability required the People to prove a defendant knew of the perpetrator's purpose and shared the perpetrator's intent. And defendants do not claim any error in the instructions defining the intent required for the substantive charges. Because we presume the juries would correlate the various instructions (see People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 952), they would not have used the "equally guilty" language to truncate their duty to determine each defendant's intent. Thus, any error in the "equally guilty" language was harmless. (See Lopez, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1119-1120.)