What is the test for reasonable foreseeability in a criminal case?

Whether the act committed was the ordinary and probable effect of the common design, or whether it was a fresh and independent product of the mind of one of the conspirators, outside of, or foreign to, the common design, is a question of fact for the jury, and if there be any evidence to support the finding of the jury on this question, its determination is conclusive. (People v. Durham, Supra, 70 Cal.2d 171, 182--183, 74 Cal.Rptr. 262, 449 P.2d 198.)

The addition by the trial court in the instant case of the element of reasonable foreseeability to the standard declared by People v. Villa, Supra, 156 Cal.App.2d 128, 318 P.2d 828, is to the advantage of the defendant, if there can be said to be any distinction between a consequence that is 'natural and reasonable or probable' and one that is reasonably foreseeable.

There was no prejudicial error in the instructions complained of.

Bohmer contends he was the victim of discriminatory prosecution. He did not make an offer of proof by substantial evidence of discrimination in fact. (See People v. Gray, 254 Cal.App.2d 256, 63 Cal.Rptr. 211.)