How have the courts interpreted the evidence in the case of appellant's possession of a shotgun and possession of an assault weapon?

The evidence conclusively established appellant's possession of a shotgun and he conceded he was a felon. The expert testimony (and common sense) established, without contradiction, that the items stored in the pantry would be used together for the purpose of building or possessing a destructive device or explosive. All indicia in the apartment made clear the apartment was appellant's, and appellant admitted to a police officer after being advised of his Miranda rights that he knew the items were in his apartment, he simply denied they were his. The defense rested without presenting any evidence. Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, that the jury heard a reliable source had told the police appellant "was into bombs" was not reasonably probable to have affected the outcome. Additionally, the court gave the jury a thorough limiting instruction, twice. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, and there is none in the case, we must assume the jury followed the court's admonition. (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 864.)