Does a defendant's failure to deny that the identity of the alleged robber was disputed at trial?

Appellant "argues that only identity was actually disputed at trial, and he did not dispute the perpetrator's intent to rob [the victims]. Even if this is so, it is not dispositive. '[T]he prosecution's burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant's tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the offense.' [Citation.]" (People v. Jones, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 371.) In any event, evidence of the 2004 robbery was properly admitted to show that appellant "likely committed the instant [robberies] for gang-related purposes." (People v. Zepeda, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1212.)