In what circumstances will a jury consider prejudicial or prejudicial evidence in a criminal case?

In the present case, the only specific piece of gang-related evidence that appellant identifies as having been particularly prejudicial was appellant's "Party in the Jetz" rap video. Appellant contends its admission was particularly prejudicial in the absence of any explanation of "[t]he exaggerated nature of this genre of music." We find it unlikely that a jury composed of Alameda County residents in the year 2012 would be so unfamiliar with the "gangsta rap" genre as to take the video's lyrics at face value, as appellant contends they may have done. To the extent appellant is contending that a limiting instruction should have given specifically regarding the video, or that he should have been permitted to present evidence explaining it in its cultural context, he has forfeited those contentions by failing to assert them at trial. (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1292-1293.)