In People v. Albarran (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 214, in a discussion on the admissibility of gang evidence, the Court of Appeal stated, "Given its highly inflammatory impact, the California Supreme Court has condemned the introduction of such evidence if it is only tangentially relevant to the charged offenses." (Id. at p. 223.) As a "general rule, evidence of gang membership and activity is admissible if it is logically relevant to some material issue in the case, other than character evidence, is not more prejudicial than probative and is not cumulative. Consequently, gang evidence may be relevant to establish the defendant's motive, intent or some fact concerning the charged offenses other than criminal propensity as long as the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect." (Ibid.) On appeal defendant contends the gang evidence was extremely prejudicial, was not probative on the issue of intent or motive, and was "only tangentially relevant to any issue of guilt as to the underlying charges." He does not specifically identify the gang evidence he found objectionable. Inter alia, the gang expert testified the primary activities of Little Zion Manor Bloods were narcotic sales, armed and home invasion robberies, and "other kinds of felonies"; a member committed murder in 2003; another member sold cocaine in 2005; and defendant's status within the gang would be enhanced by taking on the risk of holding a number of weapons for the gang. We find this evidence to be probative on the issues of motive and intent for defendant's possession of three assault weapons and a pistol, showing he likely possessed the firearms to enhance his status in the gang and to assist the gang in its perpetration of drug sales and other armed offenses. The gang enhancement was "attached to the charged offense and . . . by definition, inextricably intertwined with that offense." (Hernandez, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1048.) The evidence "was not so minimally probative on the charged offense, and so inflammatory in comparison, that it threatened to sway the jury to convict regardless of defendants' actual guilt." (Id. at p. 1051.) In People v. Albarran (2007) the court held that gang evidence was only marginally relevant but was highly prejudicial, and the defendant's federal due process rights had been violated. (Albarran, supra, at pp. 230-232.) The court stated, however, that the case before it "presented one of those rare and unusual occasions" where the error was of federal constitutional dimension. (Id. at p. 232.) The court explained: "'Only if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence can its admission violate due process. Even then, the evidence must "be of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial." Only under such circumstances can it be inferred that the jury must have used the evidence for an improper purpose.'" (Id. at p. 229.)