What is the test for accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule?

Even if defendant was correct that the evidence supported a finding that she only intended to aid and abet a robbery of a single victim, the jury here was properly and fairly instructed with the relevant law for determining whether or not the attempted robbery of the second victim and resulting homicide were part of one continuous transaction such that accomplice liability could be properly imposed against defendant under the felony-murder rule. Despite defendant's contention to the contrary, the instructions properly required the jury to resolve the factual issue of whether or not the target felony or felonies and the homicide were part of one continuous transaction. (People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 596, 624-625.) Defendant's claim of instructional error is without merit.