There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for murder on an aiding and abetting theory where the shooter was armed, he pointed the gun at the victims during an assault, and one of the codefendants shouted at him to shoot the victim during the fistfight. Appellants argued that there was insufficient evidence on the natural and probable consequences theory because there was no evidence that they knew the shooter was armed or intended to use a firearm during the fistfight. The appellate court here rejected that argument, finding sufficient evidence that a fatal shooting would be a natural and probable consequence of a fight between two rival gangs. Further, no sua sponte instruction was required to inform the jury that appellants must have known the shooter was armed, because that was an incorrect interpretation of the law.