Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 985; People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1315-1316.) Cross-admissibility concerns whether evidence of each of the joined charges would be admissible, under Evidence Code section 1101, in separate trials. (People v. Balderas, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 171-172.) Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) allows the admission of evidence that is relevant to prove some fact, other than the disposition to commit the crime, such as, motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, identity or knowledge. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).)
In making the determination of cross-admissibility, the trial court compares the gang evidence that would be admissible at a trial of the underlying offense with the gang enhancement evidence that is relevant only to prove the criminal street gang enhancement. In determining what gang evidence is admissible at a separate trial, the trial court is guided by the familiar principle that gang evidence may have a “highly inflammatory impact” on a jury and creates the risk the jury will infer guilt and criminal disposition merely from gang membership. (People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 922; People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 660.) Therefore, gang evidence should be admitted to prove the accused committed the underlying offense only after carefully balancing the probative value against the possible prejudice as required under Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 904-905.)
If the trial court finds the gang evidence admissible at the trial of the underlying offense includes the most inflammatory aspects of the gang enhancement evidence, then the evidence related to the criminal street gang enhancement is cross-admissible and any inference of prejudice is dispelled. In such cases, denial of the request for bifurcation is proper. Cases like Martin fall into this category. However, as proof of the criminal street gang enhancement becomes more attenuated from the offense itself, the extent to which the evidence is cross-admissible decreases, militating against a unitary trial. In such cases the remaining criteria are considered.
e. Application of the remaining Williams criteria.