Where a defendant had more than a month’s notice of the general subject of a gang expert’s proffered testimony, the court did not err in denying a mid-trial continuance to allow the defense to prepare to counter that testimony. Although defense counsel claimed that the first he had heard of the gang testimony was a week before the 402 hearing regarding that proffered testimony, the record contradicted that claim. Thus, the defendant had waived any right to a mid-trial continuance to seek a gang expert. Moreover, even if the court had erred in denying the continuance, defendant could not show prejudice. The fact that a previous trial at which the expert had not testified resulted in a hung jury was not legally cognizable prejudice. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the gang expert’s testimony to show motive or intent because the evidence did not speculate as to defendant’s particular knowledge and intent.