What is the test for a defendant to be a "major participant" in a robbery and murder case?

"In making the determination, we do not reweigh the evidence; the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to the evidence are matters exclusively within the province of the trier of fact. [Citation.] We simply consider whether `"`any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of [the special circumstance] beyond a reasonable doubt.'" [Citations.]' [Citation.] Unless it is clearly shown that `on no hypotheses whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict' the [special circumstance] will not be reversed. [Citation.]" (People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1161-1162.)

"The term `reckless indifference to human life' means `subjective awareness of the grave risk to human life created by his or her participation in the underlying felony.'" (People v. Proby (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 922, 928.) "As used in the term `"major participant,"' the word `"major"' means `"notable or conspicuous in effect or scope"' or `"one of the larger or more important members ... of a ... group."' [Citation.]" (People v. Smith (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 914, 928.)

In People v. Hodgson (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 566, the appellate court summarized several cases that found substantial evidence to support the robbery-murder special circumstance finding when the defendant was not the actual killer. "[I]n People v. Proby the evidence established the defendant supplied the murder weapon to the actual killer; he was armed with a semiautomatic handgun; he saw `pus' ooze out of the victim's head but did nothing to assist the victim; and helped his cohort take money and gift certificates out of the restaurant safe.

"Similarly, in People v. Bustos [(1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1447] the defendant helped plan the robbery of a particular victim because they wanted to steal her car. He carried out his role in the plan by physically subduing the victim after she entered the public bathroom and by grabbing her purse. After his cohort fatally stabbed the victim twice, he fled with his accomplices and the robbery loot and left the victim to die.

"Also in People v. Mora [(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 607], the evidence was sufficient to sustain the special circumstance finding. The defendant helped plan the robbery; was instrumental in arranging for his accomplice to enter the victim's home with a rifle; when his cohort shot the victim he carried through with the plan to steal; carried the loot away; and left the victim to die.