¶1 OPINION
¶2 Appellant was convicted of first degree murder by jury verdict and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We disagree.
¶3 The victim of this crime was killed during the theft of an automobile which had been loaned to him by his employer. During a video-taped conversation with undercover officers working “Operation Switch”, a decoy “fence” business operated by law enforcement agencies, McKinney admitted that he had planned the theft and had driven his accomplices to the location where they stole the car. Other evidence substantiates the conclusion that appellant participated in a common scheme to steal the car. The killing of the victim, although not intended by the appellant, was a natural and probable consequence of *495 the planned robbery. Cf. State v. Cushing, 61 Nev. 132, 148-149, 120 P.2d 208 , 216 (1941). Therefore, McKinney is criminally liable for the acts of his cohorts. McKinney v. Sheriff, 93 Nev. 70, 560 P.2d 151 (1977); Commonwealth v. DeMoss, 165 A.2d 14 (Pa. 1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 822 (1961).
¶4 Where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, this court will not disturb the verdict nor set aside the judgment. Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 580 P.2d 473 (1978); Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433 , 529 P.2d 206 (1974).
¶5 Affirmed.