With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". omitted); United States v. Iglesias, 915 F.2d 1524, 1528 (11th Cir.1990) (“One who has been indicted as a principal may be convicted on evidence showing only that he aided and abetted the offense.”); Quigg v. Crist, 616 F.2d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1980) (“[T]he giving of an aiding and abetting instruction does not violate due process where the state has abolished the distinction between principals and accessories, and where there is evidence before the jury to support the instruction.”); United States v. Beardslee, 609 F.2d 914, 919 (8th Cir.1979) (rejecting the argument that defendant’s due process rights were violated by an aiding and abetting instruction when the indictment did not explicitly charge him with aiding and abetting); Glass v. United States, 328 F.2d 754, 756 (7th Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>); People v. Garrison, 47 Cal.3d 746, 254

A: recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion
B: recognizing aiding and abetting trespass
C: holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting
D: holding there was no error in giving an instruction on aiding and abetting when defendant was not charged with aiding and abetting because ajiders and abettors  are chargeable directly as principals
D.