What is the test for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine?

As explained in People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1224, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 281 P.3d 799, the natural and probable consequences doctrine holds that "if an accomplice aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates a confederate to commit a crime, but the confederate instead commits another, more serious crime, the accomplice may be liable for the more serious crime if it was a natural and probable consequence of the crime that the accomplice intended to aid and abet."

" Liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine "is measured by whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have or should have known that the charged offense was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act aided and abetted." [Citation.] [Citations.] A reasonably foreseeable consequence is a factual issue to be resolved by the jury who evaluates all the factual circumstances of the individual case." ( People v. Favor (2012) 54 Cal.4th 868, 874, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 659, 279 P.3d 1131 ( Favor ).)