What is the test for a defense counsel to argue that the evidence presented to a jury under duress was relevant and probative to the element of duress?

facilitated by the duress engendered by these threats].) The evidence was therefore relevant and probative to the element of duress. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence for this purpose. Even if trial counsel had sought the limiting instruction defendant now contends was required, the court properly would have denied it. Trial counsel's performance was therefore not deficient, and defendant suffered no ineffective assistance. (People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 587 [defense counsel does not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by declining to lodge a futile objection].)