Consequently, the analysis in People v. Meyer , supra , is inapposite. Defendant contends that this language allows conviction if the proof showed only that he intended to promote or facilitate part of the crime, the aggravated robbery, but did not intend to cause the death of the victim. This argument mirrors his previously discussed objections to the application of the complicity rules to felony murder, and for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded. We conclude the complicity instruction correctly informed the jury of the elements of proof required to hold defendant criminally liable for felony murder under the theory of complicity. Bogdanov v. People , supra .
Defendant next contends the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements of a key witness.
Defendant argued at trial that he did not know the co-defendant intended to use a gun in the commission of the crime. The prosecution presented a witness, the woman who accompanied the two defendants, to rebut this position. Defendant argues that, during her direct examination, certain hearsay statements were improperly admitted. Defendant s objection at trial was that the statements were being used improperly as impeachment before the witness made an inconsistent statement in her testimony. Defendant now argues that the statements were improperly admitted as prior consistent statements.