In People v. Singleton (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 488, the defendant was found with 42 tightly bound bindles of cocaine in her boot and in the company of a friend who later admitted that he had given her the bindles to hide shortly before been stopped by police officers. The defendant's friend testified at trial that he had found the bindles on the ground in the parking lot of a bar and had given them to the defendant. The defendant was charged with possession for sale of cocaine and transportation of cocaine. The prosecution asked for and received an aiding and abetting instruction. Then, in his closing argument, the prosecutor argued the defendant did not aid and abet the friend who testified that he had given the bindles to the defendant, but that she was aiding and abetting an unknown and anonymous "Mr. X." In this unusual context, where the prosecution presented no evidence that "Mr. X" existed and argued the defendant's friend was not the principal the defendant aided, the court held that it was improper to provide the jury with an aiding and abetting instruction. In the course of reaching this conclusion, the court stated: "In cases which have upheld accomplice liability in narcotics transactions, there has always been evidence of a principal whom the defendant in some way knowingly assisted in the accomplishment of a criminal objective." (People v. Singleton, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 493.)