If the limiting instruction is completely effective, what is the test for determining whether a defendant had a motive to commit the crime?

If we further assume the limiting instruction was completely effective, we must consider the fact it permitted jurors to rely on the hearsay to determine whether "the defendant had a motive to commit the crime charged." In a separate instruction, the jury was told "[h]aving a motive may be a factor tending to show that the defendant is guilty." Since motive is "'"ordinarily the incentive for criminal behavior,"'" the probative value of such evidence is generally regarded as high. (People v. Samaniego, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1168.) The motive suggested by the testimonial hearsay was defendant's extreme animosity toward Norteo gang members. His hatred was evidently so strong that he would punch a woman in the face merely because of a perceived Norteo affiliation and use an automobile as a deadly weapon for no reason other than the victim's display of a Norteo hand gesture.