Can a defendant be found guilty of providing "aid or encouragement" with the intent or purpose of facilitating a carjacking?

Defendant admittedly knew "the full extent of the perpetrator's criminal purpose" and there is strong circumstantial evidence, at a minimum, that he gave "aid or encouragement with the intent or purpose of facilitating the perpetrator's commission of the crime." (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560.) Defendant claims he intended no aid or encouragement but a rational trier of fact could reach a contrary conclusion given his conduct during and after the carjacking. In his police statement, defendant denied acting as a lookout but admitted watching the apartment building to see "if

Page 6