Can a defendant be held liable as an aider and abettor for aiding and abetting a crime?

that appellant could not be found guilty of aiding and abetting a crime unless the direct perpetrator committed that crime, appellant knew of the direct perpetrator's intent to commit the crime, appellant shared the same intent as the direct perpetrator, and before or during the commission of the crime, appellant did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime. Based on the elements in CALCRIM No. 401, if appellant was found not to be an actual perpetrator, but found to be only involved in the killing while having a less culpable mental state than the actual killer, he could not have been held liable as an aider and abettor (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560) because "[t]here must be proof that the accused not only aided the actor but at the same time shared the criminal intent" (Pinell v. Superior Court (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 284, 287) for such liability.