Court of Appeal found that the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing a jury during deliberations on aiding and abetting liability although no evidence supported this theory, failing to instruct on the elements that had to be proven under this liability theory, and denying defense counsel’s request to address the jury regarding the theory. Reversed on two grounds: (1) the trial court committed instructional error and (2) the trial court should have given the defense an opportunity to address the jury on the new aiding and abetting theory.