In Morales’s first trial, the jury acquitted him on one count of murder, but deadlocked on two robbery counts. In a retrial, the jury found him guilty of the robberies as well as a newly alleged attempted robbery. Several enhancements, including gang enhancements were also found true. On appeal, Morales contended that his acquittal of felony murder at the first trial operates as collateral estoppel to bar his prosecution for robbery at the second trial. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent and therefore did not bar a retrial. (And also finding that the double jeopardy argument was waived for failure to raise it below.) Further, Morales contended that the testimony of a percipient witness was perjurious, and therefore the prosecution committed misconduct by presenting it. The appellate court found this issue also waived, for failure to raise it below. Further, there was no misconduct. Appellant could not show that the witness testified falsely. Even assuming he did testify falsely, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct because other evidence and the prosecutor’s own closing argument fully disclosed any falsity. Morales also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s true findings on the gang enhancements because there was no evidence he shared the intent of his codefendants. The appellate court also rejected that argument, finding that appellant’s intentional acts, combined with his knowledge that those acts would assist crimes by fellow gang members, afforded sufficient evidence of intent.