Is there any case law or precedent that curative instructions can be used to limit prejudicial evidence in a criminal case?

Defendant asserts that this well-established rule is inapplicable here because gang evidence like the kind admitted in his case is among the "types of evidence [that] are so difficult to . . . consider for one purpose but ignore for another" that curative instructions are "deemed incapable" of limiting prejudice. (People v. Charles (1967) 66 Cal.2d 330, 338.) The cases he relies on involve extremely prejudicial evidence, such as testimony referencing a defendant's inadmissible confession in violation of the court's ruling and

Page 24

videos of "emotional testimonials" by families of victims of offenses similar to those charged at trial. (People v. Navarette (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 828, 836 [inadmissible confession]; People v. Diaz (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 362, 383 [video testimonials].) In contrast, the evidence challenged here was neither emotional nor inflammatory, it consisted of minimal detail, and it consumed minimal trial time.