Can a vehicle be used as a vehicle for the purpose of avoiding prosecution?

The evidence supports the court's factual determination that there was more than one objective. Here, as argued by respondent the vehicle theft occurred hours before the shootings, involved a different victim, and a separate category of crimes (crime against property versus crime against a person). We conclude that under People v. Herrera, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at page 1466, there was no error. Although defendants criticize Herrera as contrary to law, the facts establish different objectives. It is true the theft of the car facilitated defendants' murder and attempted murders because it was used to drive to the locations of the shootings, as argued by defendants. However, the evidence supports a finding that defendants' true objective was to avoid detection after the commission of the crimes, since the vehicle was dumped shortly after the shootings. Thus, while the vehicle provided mobility, which facilitated the crimes, the evidence supports a finding that the vehicle was stolen for the purpose of avoiding detection.