What is the standard of review for a defendant in a case of aiding and abetting?

Our standard of review with respect to the sufficiency of evidence is familiar: "In addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) Where, as here, the defendant is prosecuted on a theory of aiding and abetting, the prosecutor need only show the defendant "`act[ed] with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.' [Citation.]" (People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1123.) "The jury must find `the intent to encourage and bring about conduct that is criminal, not the specific intent that is an element of the target offense . . . .'" (Ibid.)