Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gang evidence, as it was relevant to issues of identity, witness credibility, and motive. In a murder case with no gang charges, evidence of defendant’s membership in a gang supplied a motive for the shooting when defendant explained to a witness he was there on gang business. Additionally, defendant’s identification of his gang and his purpose bore on the question of identity because they prompted the witness to recognize him.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting a one-week continuance of the trial due to the out-of-state death of a member of the prosecutor’s family. Defendant forfeited procedural objections to the continuance when he did not object. The absence of findings on the record does not support an inference that the trial court granted the prosecutor’s request without inquiring into alternative solutions. The continuance did not so disrupt the trial that it undermined defendant’s right to a fair trial where the impact was only that the case took 18 days rather than 13 days to reach the jury.

Without a record of the conversation between the trial court and a seated juror, the Court of Appeal could not ascertain whether there was good cause that the juror was unable to perform his duty (PC § 1089). Trial counsel for the defense described for the record a conversation wherein the juror told the trial court that he believed he recognized defendant, but he could not say how. The trial court reseated the juror, apparently finding that the juror’s excuse came up after he became a sworn juror and the juror was trying to get out of jury duty. When an appellant fails to supply a record adequate to review a claim, the claim fails.

Defendant forfeited claims that the prosecutor’s closing arguments included improper analogies. Defendant does not contend on appeal that an objection and/or request for admonition would have been futile or an admonition would have been insufficient to cure the harm. The claim is forfeited.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B334490.PDF