Is there any evidence that a defendant knew there was surveillance equipment at the marijuana dispensary?

Defendant also observes that there was no evidence he knew the marijuana dispensary had surveillance equipment. But, again, the issue "is not whether the aider and abettor actually foresaw the additional crime, but whether, judged objectively, it was reasonably foreseeable. [Citation.]' " (People v. Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 920, original italics.) In other words, the question is not whether defendant knew there was surveillance equipment at the marijuana dispensary. Rather, the questions is whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a robbery could result in vandalism of surveillance equipment.