What is the test for determining whether a jury found appellant was a major participant in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life and that the murder occurred during the robbery?

Given these instructions it is possible that the jury found appellant was a major participant in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life and that the murder occurred "during" the robbery, but did not find the murder occurred in order to carry out or advance the robbery. The jury could have been unable to determine appellant's exact role in the murder and returned a not true finding without affirmatively determining whether he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. In People v. Santamaria (1994) 8 Cal.4th 903, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 884 P.2d 81 ( Santamaria ) the defendant was convicted of murder, but the jury found the knife use allegation not true. The defendant's conviction was overturned on appeal, and a new information charging the defendant with murder but omitting the knife use allegation was filed. Based on the prior verdicts, the defendant argued that the prosecution should be prohibited (under collateral estoppel) from arguing that the defendant used a knife in commission of the murder. ( Id. at pp. 908-909, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 884 P.2d 81 ; see People v. Palmer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 856, 865, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 13, 15 P.3d 234.)