In In re Daniel C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1350, the reviewing court found the gang expert's testimony constituted insufficient evidence to support a true finding on the allegation that Daniel committed a robbery with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. (Id. at pp. 1353, 1364.) In that case, Daniel and two other young men were observed walking back and forth inside a market. After his two companions left the store, Daniel picked up a bottle of Jack Daniels from the liquor aisle and headed toward the exit without making any effort to pay. (Id. at p. 1353.) When Daniel was confronted by a manager and attempted to flee, he accidentally broke the bottle and then hit the manager on the head with the broken bottle, causing injury. (Ibid.) Daniel got into a truck that was waiting with the engine running. The truck was later stopped with Daniel and three companions inside. (Ibid.) At Daniel's jurisdictional hearing, a gang expert testified that Daniel and two of his companions were members of the Norteno gang or an affiliate. (Daniel C., supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355.) The expert believed the robbery was gang related because of the gang affiliations of Daniel and two of his companion, the fact that they coordinated their actions in the market, the fact they were all wearing clothing containing red (their gang's color), and the presence of crowbars and a baseball bat in the truck. (Id. at p. 1356.) Daniel testified that he took the bottle on impulse and was not a Norteno. He had friends who were both Norteno and Sureno gang members. (Id. at p. 1357.) The reviewing court agreed with the juvenile court that the crime was committed in association with a criminal street gang within the meaning of the statute. (Daniel C., supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1358-1359.) It concluded, however, there was a lack of evidence showing the specific intent requirement. The court discounted the expert's testimony and concluded there was no evidence Daniel acted in concert with his companions, or that his companions committed any crime. Neither defendant nor his companions did anything to identify themselves as gang members other than wearing clothing with the color red, and there was no evidence the young men entered the store with the intention of committing a violent crime. (Id. at pp. 1361-1363.)