Although a motive can be relevant as circumstantial evidence tending to prove guilt, we note the existence of a "motive" is not an element of the offense of murder, and therefore, the State need not present direct evidence of motive to sustain a conviction. See generally Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 781 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (recognizing that although motive is not an element of murder, it may be a circumstance that is indicative of guilt); see also Bush v. State, 628 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); Molina v. State, No. 08-07-00242-CR, 2009 WL 2623364, at *3 (Tex.App.--El Paso Aug. 26, 2009, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Moreover, in Zuniga, the Court of Criminal Appeals expressly held that in prosecutions for engaging in organized criminal activity, the State need not provide direct or affirmative evidence that a defendant's "motive" for committing and/or participating in a predicate offense was gang-related, "as opposed to some other reason independent of his gang membership."