What is the standard of review in the context of the natural and probable consequences doctrine?

On appeal, we employ a de novo standard of review and independently determine whether an instruction on lesser included offenses should have been given. (People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 584.)

Page 9

The theory presented by the prosecution at trial was that appellant was guilty of murder as an aider and abettor.⁶ "[A]n aider and abettor's liability for criminal conduct is of two kinds. First, an aider and abettor with the necessary mental state is guilty of the intended crime. Second, under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, an aider and abettor is guilty not only of the intended crime, but also 'for any other offense that was a "natural and probable consequence" of the crime aided and abetted.' [Citation.]" (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1117 (McCoy).) The jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory.