In People v. Luparello (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 410, the court stated that the prosecutor in that case used a witness's innocuous description of headgear worn by one of the perpetrators (who said it was '"like the F-Troopers . . . wear"') in order to pose a barrage of leading questions to a police officer regarding the officer's experience with the F-Troop gang. (Luparello, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at pp. 423-426.) According to the Luparello court, the prosecutor "attempted to inform the jury by innuendo not only that F-Troop was a street gang whose members were suspected of committing homicides and other violent attacks on persons, but also that the gang was likely connected to the case in such a way that its members had threatened a material witness." (Id. at p. 426.) The evidence provided in the instant case bears no comparison to the evidence embedded in the prosecutor's leading questions in Luparello, to which the officer merely replied, "Yes, sir." Here, Detective Ferreria's brief mention of having investigated murders committed by the F13's among other crimes and his opinion on the meaning of defendant's tattoo did not seek to inform the jury by innuendo that the gang was connected to Abuawad's murder or that defendant's membership in a violent gang indicated he was disposed to violence. As noted previously, the Luparello court held that the prosecutor's apparent misconduct was nonprejudicial because the evidence of the preparation for the crimes showed the appellant's willingness to use weapons and commit acts of violence. (Luparello, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 426.) The Luparello court also cited the trial court's cautionary instruction, which, although different from the limiting instruction in the instant case, was one of the circumstances showing that it was not reasonably probable the jury would have reached a more favorable verdict in the absence of the misconduct. (Id. at p. 427.)