In People v. Fuentes (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1133, the defendant faced charges of murder, attempted murder, assault, street terrorism, and other crimes involving the use of a firearm, and alleged gang enhancements pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court in Fuentes, as here, instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 370, which states: "The People are not required to prove that the defendant had a motive to commit any of the crimes charged. In reaching your verdict you may, however, consider whether the defendant had a motive. Having a motive may be a factor tending to show that the defendant is guilty. Not having a motive may be a factor tending to show the defendant is not guilty." The defendant in Fuentes, as here, argued CALCRIM No. 370 contradicted the instruction given for the gang enhancement allegations, CALCRIM No. 1401. This instruction requires the prosecution to prove the defendant "committed or attempted to commit the crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in the association with a criminal street gang; and, the defendant intended to assist further or promote criminal conduct by gang members." The Fuentes court rejected the defendant's challenge to CALCRIM No. 370, concluding: "An intent to further criminal gang activity is no more a 'motive' in legal terms than is any other specific intent. We do not call a premeditated murderer's intent to kill a 'motive,' though his action is motivated by a desire to cause the victim's death. Combined, the instructions here told the jury the prosecution must prove that defendant intended to further gang activity but need not show what motivated his wish to do so. This was not ambiguous and there is no reason to think the jury could not understand it. Defendant claims the intent to further criminal gang activity should be deemed a motive, but he cites no authority for this position. There was no error." (Fuentes, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1139-1140.)