What is the test for a defendant to request a continuance to prepare a response to aggravating evidence?

A defendant's "failure to request a continuance [to prepare a response to aggravating evidence] generally 'precludes any showing of prejudice attributable to [the] delay' [in receiving notice of it]." (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 799, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485, citing People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 771, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2.) Defendant does not contend he requested a continuance. Rather, defendant [16 Cal.4th 242] simply asserts that deficiencies in the notice provided prevented his trial counsel from making key decisions about his defense. Defendant suggests it was not possible for his counsel to prepare a coherent overall trial strategy, but identifies no portion of the trial record illustrating the effect the prosecution's omissions assertedly had on his counsel's performance. Indeed, defendant does not state how counsel's trial strategy might have differed had the prosecution's notice come sooner.