What is the test for aiding and abetting in an attempted robbery and attempted murder?

Appellant drove the van that approached Insuasti. He asked Insuasti where he was from and displayed a firearm. Insuasti fled. Appellant responded by turning off the lights on the van and pursuing Insuasti. Appellant stopped the van, the door to the vehicle opened, and appellant's companion alighted and demanded Insuasti's phone. When he refused to relinquish the phone, appellant's cohort struck him in the neck and Insuasti ran. As he ran, appellant and his accomplice chased him, the former in the van and the latter on foot. Appellant tried to cut Insuasti off and veered and attempted to strike him with the vehicle. The van stopped and Insuasti immediately heard a gunshot. On these facts, there is no question the evidence established that the driver of the van had the requisite intent to aid the commission of an attempted robbery and attempted murder. Appellant's trial counsel wisely recognized intent was not an issue and argued instead that Insuasti's identification of appellant was suspect and that no one attempted to take Insuasti's life. Further clarifying instructions with respect to aiding and abetting were simply not warranted because there was no substantial evidence that appellant formed the intent to aid his accomplice until after the crimes were completed. (See People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1200 ["The trial court need not give instructions based solely on conjecture and speculation."].)