Is there any case law where a jury was ordered to consider evidence of criminal activity prior to the trial of a defendant who was involved in drug dealing, firearms possession, and robbery?

Defendant complains that "the jury was treated to an expose of [his] specific criminal history as the result of the failure to bifurcate the gang enhancement." We assume defendant is referring to evidence of defendant's prior contacts with law enforcement. Such evidence was offered to prove defendant's membership in the Bloods, which is relevant to defendant's motive, and thus, admissible in a trial limited to guilt. Accordingly, bifurcation was not necessary. (See People v. Hernandez, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1049-1050.) In any event, evidence defendant was involved in drug sales, firearms possession, or robbery is not particularly inflammatory when compared to a drive-by shooting committed on a public street in broad daylight.

Moreover, any danger that the jury would rely upon the gang evidence for an improper purpose was minimized by the court's limiting instruction. (See People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1332.) The court instructed the jury in the language of CALCRIM No. 1403 as follows: "You may consider evidence of gang activity only for the limited purpose of deciding whether: [] The defendant acted with the intent, purpose, and knowledge that are required to prove the gang-related enhancement charged. [] You may also consider this evidence when you evaluate the credibility or believability of a witness and when you consider the facts and information relied on by an expert witness in reaching his or her opinion. [] You may not consider this evidence for any other purpose. You may not conclude from this evidence that the defendant is a person of bad character or that he has a disposition to commit crime."