Is a defendant's poverty or indebtedness admissible to refute his claim that he committed the robbery because he did not need the money?

^6. While "[e]vidence of poverty or indebtedness is admissible . . . to refute a defendant's claim that he did not commit the robbery because he did not need the money [citation], or to eliminate other possible explanations for the defendant's sudden wealth after a theft offense" (People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1024), neither party argues the exceptions are relevant here. Gallegos neither claimed a lack of need for the funds, nor did he experience a sudden influx of wealth.