Can the Attorney General argue that the evidence of assault was not cross-admissible?

Morrow's emphasis on the absence of cross-admissible evidence is not persuasive. The trial court did not place any emphasis on possible cross-admissibility of the evidence when it granted the motion to consolidate.¹¹ While Morrow vigorously disputes the Attorney General's argument that the evidence of the assault would have been admissible to establish intent or absence of mistake on the murder charge, or that the charges contained common elements, the absence of cross-admissible evidence does not compel separate trials. ( 954.1; People v. Soper, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 775, 779-780.) Even if the evidence was not cross-admissible, the remaining factors to be considered under section 954 support the court's order. (See ibid.)