Does a court have a reversible error in responding to a jury question about aiding and abetting after the fact?

. . . ," the court's re-reading of its original instructions in response to the question was not reversible error); United States v. Collom, 614 F.2d 624, 641 (9th Cir. 1979) (where a deliberating jury asked, "[Does] aiding and abetting after the fact constitute a violation of the law?" and the district court, in response, "reinstructed the jury on the elements of aiding and abetting, and . . . specifically invited them to ask further questions should the need arise," the court "acted well within [its] discretion"); Davis v. Greer, 675 F.2d 141, 145-46 (7th Cir. 1982) (where the "entire jury charge clearly and correctly stated the controlling law," and the trial court responded to a jury question by saying only, "Consider all of the instructions carefully," the "trial court's response was sufficiently specific to clarify the jury's confusion").