Ft] he jury was rroneousiy insLrjted on (a) Murder as a ui :ural and p:5able consq:ience per pe0p.e VS enLu SY al 4 Lb 5 172 caL Rptr 3d 438 325 P .3d 972(2014) In :njunction w:h jut" instructLoii for (b) riruniebita Led niurder and (c) fe Loriy murder ,could Ltie jury not have convicted ;)etitioer of Lrie natural and prrbab.Le cOnsa1:Lence coct-ine with out also finding tint he was guilty of first degree nutder.

L2LWhe respondent conceded the jury was erroneously givIi the natthrai and probabin onsequence truc Lion can IL be said no mater what s . idard of nrejudice applied to that chin error no prima fade case for relief can be made.

[31 What standard of prejudice should be applied to a Chi,) error peoplu vs chiu (2)14) 59 cal 4 :h 155.

[4 .in conjuncio it the natiral and probrhle nseqyence doctrine can both 1ndiv1dua7 h convicted ;: 1st degree mudr where only one ind±vdu1 fired the Weapon tht caused death.

Where she jury was erroneously instrycted on (a) Murder as a natural and presbable consequence per peopie vs chiu 39 cal 4th $35 172 cad Rotr 3d 438 325 P.3d 972(2014) in conjunction with jurv instruction for(b) prewebitated wurder and (c) feloay murder,could the jury not have 2» convicted petitioer of ihe natural and provable conse ysence doctrine with out also finding that he was guilty of first degree murder