In People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, the California Supreme Court upheld a conviction for first degree torture murder on facts similar to those presented here. The California Supreme Court held: "The evidence of the victim's wounds support first degree murder by torture. The evidence indicates that she was brutally kicked or punched, and that, after she was incapacitated, the perpetrator methodically poured hot cooking oil onto various portions of her body, repositioning her body so as to inflict numerous burns throughout her body, including her genital region. As we have stated, the jury may infer the required mental state for murder by torture from the condition of the victim's body. Here the condition of the body, with the numerous methodical burn wounds inflicted, abundantly supports the jury's finding that defendant had the willful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to cause extreme pain or suffering for a sadistic purpose." (Id. at p. 201.) In People v. Whisenhunt (2008) the defendant contended CALJIC No. 2.51 "had the effect of negating the element of 'sadistic purpose' in the first degree murder by torture instruction, CALJIC No. 8.24" and, acknowledging that his argument had been rejected already in People v. Lynn (1984), asked the Supreme Court to disapprove Lynn. (People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 218.) The Supreme Court refused to do so because the court "concluded Lynn correctly decided this issue ... . As the Supreme Court had noted in rejecting another similar challenge to CALJIC No. 2.51, 'although malice and certain intents and purposes are elements of the crimes, ... motive is not an element.' (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469.) 'Motive describes the reason a person chooses to commit a crime. The reason, however, is different from a required mental state such as intent or malice.'" (Whisenhunt, at p. 218.)