Does the Attorney General's error in instructing a defendant on liability as an aider and abetter apply?

Defendant contends that by instructing on liability as an aider and abetter pursuant to former CALJIC No. 3.01, the court erred under People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318. The Attorney General impliedly [756 P.2d 249] concedes the error, but urges it was harmless. We agree. The record demonstrates this is a case in which the Beeman error could not possibly have affected the verdict. All the evidence established that defendant was either the principal perpetrator of the offenses or not involved at all; there was absolutely no evidence that he was an aider and abetter. Thus, under the evidence the aiding and abetting instruction was simply not applicable and therefore could not have subjected defendant to prejudice.

[45 Cal.3d 1316]