engaged in criminal activity as a way of life. As repeatedly has been observed, this is highly inflammatory testimony. However, based on the facts of this case, we conclude the jury would not have reached a result more favorable to appellants absent Goetz’s testimony.
i. Failure to give a limiting instruction does not alter the result.
The trial court indicated it would instruct the jury on the use of the gang evidence at the appropriate time but failed to do so. Fuentes contends the trial court’s inadvertent failure to instruct the jury not to consider the gang testimony as evidence of bad character or propensity to commit crime compounded the refusal to bifurcate the criminal street gang enhancement. Fuentes argues the result would have been more favorable had the jury been appropriately admonished.
The failure to give cautionary instructions has been held not to warrant reversal if, upon reweighing the evidence, a more favorable result does not appear reasonably probable. (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 71-75 [116 L.Ed.2d 385]; People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1224; People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 498.)
It does not appear a limiting instruction would have altered the result in this case. The jury was instructed it was not bound by an expert opinion, it could disregard any opinion it found to be unreasonable, the weight to be given an opinion was for the jury to decide, the facts of any hypothetical question are not necessarily true and oral statements made by a defendant before being charged with a crime should be viewed with caution. (CALJIC Nos. 2.80, 2.82, 2.71.7.) Also, defense counsel reminded the jury not to substitute “allegations of gang membership for proof of the underlying crime,” and that Goetz was a professional witness who was not present at the time of the offense and had conducted no investigation.
We cannot conclude the jury would have reached a result more favorable to Hernandez and Fuentes had the limiting instruction been given. (People v. Bunyard, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1225; People v. Shoals, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 499.)