In People v. Morales (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1176, the defendant and two fellow gang members robbed two victims while visiting a house. There was no evidence the victims were associated with any gang. The prosecution's expert testified the robberies were committed for the benefit of the gang, the gang provided a "'ready-made manpower pool,'" and one member could count on the loyalty of the others to "'watch his back.'" Also, "the very presence of multiple gang members would be intimidating" and would benefit the gang "with notoriety among rival gang members and the general public." (Id. at p. 1197.) The jury found the gang enhancement true, and the defendant argued on appeal there was insufficient evidence he had the requisite specific intent, because the evidence only showed the three men belonged to the same gang. Morales held the defendant's intentional acts, "when combined with his knowledge that those acts would assist crimes by fellow gang members, afforded sufficient evidence of the requisite specific intent." (Morales, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 1199.) "Specific intent to benefit the gang is not required. What is required is the 'specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members . . . .' Here, there was evidence that defendant intended to commit robberies, that he intended to commit them in association with Flores and Moreno, and that he knew that Flores and Moreno were members of his gang. Moreover, . . . there was sufficient evidence that defendant intended to aid and abet the robberies Flores and Moreno actually committed. It was fairly inferable that he intended to assist criminal conduct by his fellow gang members." (Id. at p. 1198.) "The typical close case is one in which one gang member, acting alone, commits a crime. Admittedly, it is conceivable that several gang members could commit a crime together, yet be on a frolic and detour unrelated to the gang. Here, however, there was no evidence of this. Thus, the jury could reasonably infer the requisite association from the very fact that defendant committed the charged crimes in association with fellow gang members." (Morales, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 1198.) In that case, on appeal, the defendant argued evidence a gang member committed a crime in association with other gang members did not in itself establish the crime was committed "(1) for the benefit of, (2) at the direction of, or (3) in association with a gang." (Morales, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 1198.) The Court of Appeal acknowledged, "it is conceivable that several gang members could commit a crime together, yet be on a frolic and detour unrelated to the gang," but concluded the evidence permitted the reasonable inference the defendant committed the charged crimes in association with fellow gang members. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal explained that the intent element of section 186.22 (b) did not require specific intent to benefit the gang, but "'specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members . . . .'" (Morales, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 1198.) The court concluded, "defendant's intentional acts, when combined with his knowledge that those acts would assist crimes by fellow gang members, afforded sufficient evidence of the requisite specific intent." (Id. at pp. 1198-1199)