to the issue of motive for the shooting, its admission for that purpose was obvious. There was never any indication the gag-related evidence should be considered for any other reason, such as to improperly suggest petitioner was guilty of the attempted murders because he had a criminal disposition. Thus, there is no reason to conclude the jury might have deduced from the trial court's instructions that the gang-related evidence apart from Detective Nicker-son's rebuttal testimony could be used for an improper purpose. (See People v. Freeman, 8 Cal.4th 450, 495, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249 (1994) [limiting instruction not necessarily beneficial to defense when purpose of evidence obvious].) 15 . See e.g., California v. Roy, 519 U.S. 2, 5, 117 S.Ct. 337, 136 L.Ed.2d 266 (1996) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Terry testified at a preliminary hearing
holding that harmless error analysis applies to sandstrom mandatory presumption errors holding that confronta tion clause errors were subject to harmless error analysis holding that instructional errors that do not categorically vitiate all the jurys findings  are trial errors as to which harmless error analysis applies not structural errors emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted quoting neder v united states 527 us 1 11 119 sct 1827 144 led2d 35 1999 holding blakely errors are subject to harmless error analysis holding that instructional errors that are trial errors are subject to harmless error analysis