What is the test for establishing that there is a common element of substantial importance in a pimp case?

^2. We also note that "'[o]ffenses "committed at different times and places against different victims are nevertheless 'connected together in their commission' when they are . . . linked by a '"common element of substantial importance."' [Citations.]"' [Citations.]" (People v. Valdez, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 119.) Here, the prosecution showed that defendant's status as a pimp was a common element of substantial importance as evidence of his motivation and knowledge of the area and the vulnerability of his victims.

^3. As defendant has not had the trial exhibits transmitted to this court, we have not viewed the videos in evidence. "It is axiomatic that it is the burden of the appellant to provide an adequate record to permit review of a claimed error, and failure to do so may be deemed a waiver of the issue on appeal. [Citations.]" (People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1385.)