The trial court properly instructed the jury with a modification of CALCRIM 1400 which allowed him to be convicted of street terrorism for committing the felonies charged in the information. Following his conviction for multiple offenses, including a violation of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a), appellant contended that the jury was improperly instructed based on the trial judge’s modifications to CALCRIM No. 1400 which identified the four felonies appellant was charged with as the felonious criminal conduct. Appellant argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury that a person cannot be guilty of street terrorism unless he aids and abets a separate felony offense in addition to an underlying gang related offense. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Requiring an additional separate felony would defeat the Legislature’s purpose of making gang participation a substantive crime, which is demonstrated by the commission of or aiding and abetting a single instance of gang-related felonious conduct. There is no authority to support the contention that the conduct must be a predicate crime listed in section 186.22(e).