In what circumstances will a superior court err from instructing on the natural-and-probable-consequence rule?

In one respect, however, the superior court did indeed err. It instructed on the natural-and-probable-consequence rule itself. In so doing, it instructed "abstractly"--that is, in correct legal terms but without factual applicability (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th [926 P.2d 1033] 238, 282, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897). It should not have done so. (See ibid.)

The superior court's error in giving an "abstract" instruction on the natural-and-probable-consequence rule violated California law, but did not implicate the United States Constitution. (See People v. Rowland, supra,

Page 847