1. Did the Ninth Circuit err under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254(d)(1) in affirming that the jury instructions given by the California Supreme Court comported with the shared intent requirement set forth in Enmund?

2. If so, does this Court's decision in Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376 (1986), which required that evidence of the shared intent to murder of the aider and abettor appear in the record of the state court proceedings, mandate that this case be sent back to the state court to determine if such a finding exists?

Did the Ninth Circuit err under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254(d)(1) in affirming that the jury instructions given by the California Supreme Court comported with the shared intent requirement set forth in Enmund?