Is there any case law where a jury reasonably could reasonably find that a murder victim had motive for the killing?

First, the evidence supported a motive for the killing: removing Barkhordar as a perceived obstacle. Indeed, appellant acknowledges the evidence supported an inference that he attacked Barkhordar in "response to an obstacle being placed in appellant's path to catch up to Pineda . . . ." The jury reasonably could have found appellant was motivated to kill Barkhordar to prevent interference in completing the crime. Alternatively, the jury reasonably could have found appellant was motivated to kill Barkhordar to prevent interference in getting away with the crime -- in other words, to eliminate him as a potential witness. (See People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 471 (Elliot) [jury reasonably could have found defendant had motive to eliminate victim as witness to his attempts to commit robbery and torture]; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 332 [jury reasonably could have found defendant had motive to eliminate victims as witnesses to his shooting of another victim].)

Second, the fact that appellant brought a knife as he pursued Pineda through the home and into the bedroom was evidence that he planned to kill any occupant whom he perceived as an obstacle. (See People v. Steele (2002) 27

Page 18