Is the intent of an aider and abettor to facilitate the commission of a specific intent crime necessarily the intent to achieve a future consequence?

The intent of an aider and abettor to facilitate the commission of a specific intent crime is necessarily the intent to "achieve a future consequence" because the aider and abettor must intend for the perpetrator to commit the crime. The aider and abettor's intent that the perpetrator commit the target offense is the intent to achieve a future consequence since the perpetrator's commission of the target offense is a future consequence of the aider and abettor's facilitating conduct. ¹⁹ I would conclude that the intent of an aider and abettor of a specific intent crime is therefore properly categorized as a specific intent even if it is not the same specific intent ²⁰ as that harbored by the perpetrator. ²¹ "When the definition of the offense includes the intent to do some act or achieve some consequence beyond the actus reus of the crime, the aider and abettor must share the specific intent of the perpetrator. By 'share' we mean neither that the aider and abettor must be prepared to commit the offense by his or her own act should the perpetrator fail to do so, nor that the aider and abettor must seek to share the fruits of the crime. Rather, an aider and abettor will 'share' the perpetrator's specific intent when he or she knows the full extent of the perpetrator's criminal purpose and gives aid or encouragement with the intent or purpose of facilitating the perpetrator's commission of the crime." (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560, 199 Cal.Rptr. 60, 674 P.2d 1318, internal citations omitted.)