People v. Fuentes (2009)

In People v. Fuentes (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1133, an information charged defendant with murder, attempted murder, assault, street terrorism, and various other crimes involving the use of a firearm, and alleged gang enhancements pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 370, using the same language quoted above. (Fuentes, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1139.) Defendant argued CALCRIM No. 370 contradicted the instruction for the gang enhancement allegations, which required the jury to determine whether the prosecution proved defendant committed the crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang, and that defendant intended to assist, further, or promote criminal conduct by gang members. (Ibid.) The Fuentes court stated: "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.) The Court considered the interaction of CALCRIM No. 370 on motive and gang enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), and rejected a similar claim. In Fuentes, the court observed the "superficial attractiveness" of the argument that the motive instruction undercut the gang and special enhancement instructions given in the case. "Any reason for doing something can rightly be called a motive" and there are "reasons that stand behind other reasons." (Fuentes, at p. 1140.) However, "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 Fuentes 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." (Id. at pp. 1139-1140.) In People v. Fuentes (2009) the jury convicted Fuentes of a number of felonies based upon a shooting and found the attached gang enhancements true. (Id. at p. 1137.) Fuentes contended the court gave conflicting jury instructions when it instructed the jury using CALCRIM pattern instructions on motive and the gang enhancement. (Id. at pp. 1135, 1139.) The Fuentes court rejected the argument and concluded "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 this action is motivated by a desire to cause the victim's death. Combined, the instructions here told the jury the prosecution must prove that Fuentes 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." (Id. at pp. 1139-1140.) "By listing the various 'intents' the prosecution was required to prove (the intent to kill, the intent to further gang activity), while also saying the prosecution did not have to prove a motive, the instructions told the jury where to cut off the chain of reasons. This was done without saying anything that would confuse a reasonable juror." (Id. at p. 1140.)