What is the test for direct accomplice in a murder case?

Furthermore, we interpret the jury's question as calling, on the most basic level, for an either/or answer, not a yes/no answer. In effect, the jury was asking: "Does the defendant have to have knowledge of the [specific] crime [the perpetrator intends to commit] or [is it enough if he knows of] any unlawful purpose [of the perpetrator], per point 1 of [direct] aiding and abetting?" (Italics added.) That is evidently why the jury included the words "(specific crime)." The jury seems to have been uncertain about the degree of specificity required in the knowledge element, and nothing more. They wanted to know if Watts had to know Reed intended to commit a murder to be found guilty as a direct accomplice, or whether he could be so convicted if he just knew Reed was up to no good, or intended to assault or scare someone instead of intending to kill. (See People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 268 ["nefarious" conduct not enough].) Thus, a simple "yes" would not have been responsive to the jury's question.