In what circumstances will the court allow the jury to convict appellant of murder under CALCRIM No. 400?

But as in Samaniego, any error here was harmless. To the extent the instructional error affected appellant's constitutionally guaranteed trial rights, we must employ the harmless error standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24. We find the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury necessarily found the requisite mental states to convict appellant of murder under other instructions. (Ibid.) The court did not instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 400 in a vacuum. The court's instructions included CALCRIM No. 401, which explained that: "To prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that . . . [] . . . [] . . . [t]he defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime," and that "[b]efore or during the commission of the crime, the

Page 18