What is the test for determining whether a defendant can be found guilty of a felony murder under section 1170.95?

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying his section 1170.95 petition. Defendant concedes that the trial court did not instruct the jury with the standard instructions for liability under a felony murder or natural and probable consequences theory, but asserts that the court instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory "in a roundabout way" because the jury instruction defining murder defined "implied malice" as existing when (1) a defendant intentionally commits an act, (2) "[t]he natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life," (3) the defendant "knew his act was dangerous to human life" and (4) the defendant "deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life." (Italics added.) Because the resolution of defendant's argument turns on the propriety and meaning of the jury instructions, our review is de novo. (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 538.)