What is the legal test for establishing a logical and temporal nexus between a robbery and a murder?

Where, as here, there is no dispute the victim's death occurred during the course of and as a result of the robbery, there is no requirement an instruction explicitly setting forth the requirement of a logical and temporal nexus be given. (People v. Cavitt, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 204.) "The existence of a logical nexus between the felony and the murder in the felony-murder context, like the relationship between the robbery and the murder in the context of the felony-murder special circumstance [citation], is not a separate element of the charged crime but, rather, a clarification of the scope of an element. [Citation.] `[T]he mere act of "clarifying" the scope of an element of a crime or special circumstance does not create a new and separate element of that crime or special circumstance.' [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 203-204.)

"Hence, if the requisite nexus between the felony and the homicidal act is not at issue and the trial court has otherwise adequately explained the general principles of law requiring a determination whether the killing was committed in the perpetration of the felony, `it is the defendant's obligation to request any clarifying or amplifying instructions on the subject.' [Citation.] `Sua sponte instructions are required only' "`on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case.'"'" [Citations.] In sum, there is no sua sponte duty to clarify the principles of the requisite relationship between the felony and the homicide without regard to whether the evidence supports such an instruction. [Citation.]" (People v. Cavitt, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 204.)