In People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, two defendants were convicted of first degree murder and firing a gun into an occupied vehicle, along with gang enhancements. (Id. at pp. 1413-1414.) At trial, the prosecution offered evidence that one of the defendants had been involved in a prior gang-related vehicle shooting. (Id. at p. 1418.) The trial court instructed the jury as follows: "'You may consider evidence of gang activity only for the limited purpose in deciding whether the defendant acted with the intent, purpose, and knowledge that are required to prove the gang-related enhancements or whether the defendant had a motive to commit the crimes charged or for the purpose of identity.'" (Id. at p. 1421.) The Court of Appeal found the addition of the word "identity" erroneous under the facts of the case (although the error was harmless) because "the trial court's placement of the word 'identity' at the end of the instruction made it at best ambiguous, and at worst told the jury that it could consider the prior shooting incident as evidence that defendants, particularly the defendant involved in that shooting, had a modus operandi of participating in shootings from vehicles. Certainly the court erred under state law by shaping the litigation as it did and then inviting the jury to consider evidence of gang activity to establish defendants' identities as the perpetrators of the murder . . . and the other charged crimes." (Id. at p. 1421.)