What is the test for an accomplice to be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime?

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in modifying CALJIC No. 3.14, ¹ a jury instruction providing a supplementary definition of the term accomplice in addition to that contained in CALJIC No. 3.10. As explained below, we conclude that the trial court was correct in modifying the instruction to require that an accomplice be shown to have had a criminal intent that the offense be committed, in accordance with the holding in People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318, that in order to be convicted of a crime on a theory of aiding and abetting, a defendant must be shown to have had a criminal intent that the offense be committed.