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

"'"A person who knowingly aids and abets criminal conduct is guilty of not only the intended crime [target offense] but also of any other crime the perpetrator actually commits [nontarget offense] that is a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime. The latter question is not whether the aider and abettor actually foresaw the additional crime, but whether, judged objectively, it was reasonably foreseeable. [Citation.]" [Citation.] 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.]" (People v. Favor (2012) 54 Cal.4th 868, 874 (Favor).) To be reasonably foreseeable, the consequences of the perpetrator's act "'"need not have been a strong probability; a possible consequence which might reasonably have been contemplated is enough. . . ." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v.

Page 16

Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 920, quoting People v. Nguyen (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 518, 535.) "A reasonably foreseeable consequence is a factual issue to be resolved by the jury who evaluates all the factual circumstances of the individual case. [Citation.]" (Favor, supra, at p. 874.)