What is the test for using the word "primary" in the context of a criminal investigation?

People v. Margarejo (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 102, is instructive. In Margarejo, the prosecutor asked a police gang expert about the gang's primary activities. In response, the expert referred only to "activities," but did not use "primary" in his answer. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the testimony was not sufficient evidence to support a true finding on the primary activities element. The court explained "the jury had ample reason to infer that [the expert's] answer implicitly incorporated the word 'primary' from the question. Ordinary human communication often is flowing and contextual. [The defendant's] objection here calls for an unreasonably restrictive

Page 16