Title: Hamilton v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 090069
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: January 15, 2010

PRESENT:  All the Justices 
 
KELIS ALLEN HAMILTON 
 
OPINION BY 
v. 
Record No. 090069 
 
 
JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JANUARY 15, 2010 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA  
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
Kelis Allen Hamilton was convicted by jury trial in the 
Circuit Court of Augusta County of three counts of assault and 
battery by a mob in violation of Code § 18.2-42 and one count 
of participating in a criminal street gang in violation of 
Code § 18.2-46.2.  Because we conclude that the evidence was 
sufficient to sustain these convictions, we will affirm the 
judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. 
I.  FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS1 
The convictions challenged on appeal arose out of a party 
in August 2006 at Garrett Johnston's 110-acre farm located in 
Augusta County.  The assault and battery convictions involve 
three separate victims: Zachary Small, Daniel Payne, and 
Johnston.  The conviction for participating in a criminal 
street gang concerns a gang known as the "Nine Trey Bloods" 
(the Bloods). 
                     
1 We will state the evidence in the light most favorable 
to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court, 
and will accord the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable 
inferences fairly drawn from the evidence.  Murphy v. 
Commonwealth, 264 Va. 568, 571, 570 S.E.2d 836, 837 (2002). 
At trial, the Commonwealth called two police officers, 
Mark Campbell and Christopher Hartless, both of whom qualified 
as expert witnesses with regard to the Bloods.  The experts 
provided the following information about that gang. 
The Bloods wear the color red, while a rival gang known 
as the "Crips" wear the color blue.  The location of the color 
worn signifies the degree of respect shown to a particular 
gang.  For example, a color worn high on the body, as in a 
hat, shows great respect.  Blood members often wear red hats 
and many of them wear Boston Red Sox hats because, although 
black, the hats have the letter "B" in red on the front.  In 
addition, black is a neutral color that, when worn with red, 
is "used . . . to show affiliation."  It is a sign of 
disrespect to wear blue in a Blood member's presence. 
The term "Blood-[a]t" is a "Blood war cry" used to call 
members of the gang to "converge" and "provide whatever . . . 
assistance is required."  The term "Dip Set" is a reference to 
a "rap group" whose members are known to be in the Bloods.  
Hartless opined that the use of those terms during an assault 
would likely mean that the incident was "gang-involved, gang-
related." 
The Bloods have several body marks or tattoos associated 
with membership.  One such mark is a "dog paw" or "Trey burn," 
which is a grouping of three circular marks, burned onto the 
2 
skin with a cigarette or some other circular object.  Each 
burn represents a rape, robbery, or murder, and a Blood member 
has to commit those crimes before he can get the burns.  To 
burn a rival gang member in that manner would indicate 
enormous disrespect. 
Neither expert witness testified as to any prior 
involvement by Hamilton with the Bloods.  Hartless stated that 
Hamilton did not have any tattoos and, to his knowledge, did 
not wear any gang-related colors prior to the events at the 
party.  Campbell acknowledged that the number of Blood members 
without tattoos would be "rather low" but that it would be 
consistent with a member who had not performed any work for 
the gang or who was trying to avoid detection by the police.  
Hartless opined that Hamilton was not involved with the Bloods 
prior to the party.  However, Hartless did opine that a gang 
assault involving "some people who had never been affiliated 
with that gang before" could "potential[ly]" be a form of 
"initiation for one or more of the individuals within that 
group." 
Approximately 400 people attended the party that lasted 
from ten o'clock in the evening to three o'clock the following 
morning.  Numerous witnesses testified about consuming alcohol 
at the party, some admitting that they were intoxicated.  
Likewise, several witnesses stated that a number of small 
3 
fights erupted during the party in addition to the incidents 
at issue in this case. 
At some point in the evening, Johnston noticed a group of 
individuals that he assumed were members of the Bloods because 
they all were wearing red bandanas.  According to Johnston, 
the group was "chilling in one section of [a] tent" that 
Johnston had erected for the party.  Johnston approached the 
individuals and inquired if they were "Bloods," to which they 
responded, "Yes." 
The defendant, Hamilton, admitted at trial that he 
attended the party.  He claimed that he wore a red and black 
hat, a black and gold shirt, and blue jeans.  Hamilton 
conceded the hat could have been a Boston Red Sox hat.  
Another party guest, Christopher R. McLaughlin, testified that 
Hamilton was wearing both a red cap and a red shirt.  
According to McLaughlin, Hamilton approached him and stated, 
"You're a Blood and you don't even know it."  McLaughlin 
assumed Hamilton made that statement because McLaughlin was 
wearing a red baseball cap and a red shirt.  McLaughlin 
responded that he was not "gang-related" and walked away. 
According to Johnston, the Bloods were involved in a "big 
fight" that "blew up" at approximately three o'clock in the 
morning.  Zachary Small, who was wearing a dark blue shirt, 
knocked over a bottle, began to pick it up and, noticing that 
4 
it was empty, let it fall to the ground again.  When Small 
stood up, a "big guy" standing there hit Small in the face.  
Believing his jaw was broken, Small stated, "Hold on 
man. . . . It ain't like that."  Small heard someone say, "You 
made it like that" and then someone struck him from the side.  
Small was battered several more times and eventually "knocked 
out."  Small told police that during the assault, he heard 
someone say, "We ain't wearing red for nothing."  After the 
party, Small discovered that he had suffered cigarette burns 
on his back.  Detective Campbell opined that the burn marks on 
Small's back could have been the start of a "Trey burn" or a 
sign of retaliation for disrespect to the Bloods. 
McLaughlin witnessed the assault on Small.  McLaughlin 
testified that there was "a scuffle, something about knocking 
over a drink or something."  As he began to walk the other 
direction, McLaughlin turned and saw "12 kids over top of 
. . . Zach" kicking and beating him.  McLaughlin stated that 
"[a]ll you could see was red" and that he heard someone 
saying, "You don't think we're wearing red for nothing."  
McLaughlin did not remember seeing Hamilton in the group of 
people assaulting Small. 
Donald Stouffer, however, did see Hamilton.  Although 
Stouffer did not witness the assault itself, he saw Hamilton 
standing over Small while Small was lying on the ground.  
5 
According to Stouffer, Hamilton was doing something with his 
hands around the middle of Small's back but was not rendering 
assistance to Small.  After seeing a picture of the cigarette 
burns on Small's back, Stouffer assumed Hamilton was putting 
out a cigarette on Small's back.  Stouffer also heard "a big 
guy," weighing around 400 pounds, yelling "We're not wearing 
red for the hell of it." 
Matthew Howdyshell witnessed the end of the assault on 
Small.  Howdyshell saw Small lying on the ground, trying to 
get up, and then falling to the ground again.  When Small fell 
to the ground, somebody came up to him yelling "Dip Set" while 
also kicking him.  The man kicking Small was wearing a red 
shirt. 
A witness who testified on behalf of Hamilton, Whitney 
Randolph, identified Marty Scott2 as the person who initially 
assaulted and battered Small.  She stated that a fight broke 
out on top of the hill when Small kicked over a bottle.  
According to Randolph, Scott asked Small why he had done so 
and when Small walked off, Scott hit him.  Randolph further 
stated that as Small was lying on the ground, "three or four 
people jumped on him." 
                     
2 Campbell testified that Marty Scott was a second 
lieutenant in the Bloods. 
6 
Hamilton testified on direct examination to seeing "a 
group of guys all rushing a White male."  According to 
Hamilton, he assisted the host of the party in breaking up 
that fight.  Hamilton stated that he did not know the victim 
of that particular assault, and it is unclear from his 
testimony whether that incident was the assault on Small.  On 
cross-examination, however, Hamilton admitted that he 
recognized Small as the victim of an attack but only after 
Small was already lying on the ground.  Hamilton described the 
assault that he purportedly helped bring to an end as the 
"first fight" and stated that the "next fight [was] the last 
one, which was the big fight . . . on top of the hill."3  
Hamilton provided these details about the "big fight": 
I noticed a – a group of guys just running up on the 
hill. . . . And the next thing I know, it was like a 
group of guys just all started arguing back and 
forth, and I seen [sic] two White males get hit with 
a tiki torch.  And the next thing you know, it was 
just like a big commotion, a fight just broke out.  
And at that time, I seen [sic] [Jakari] Hart pull 
out a nickel-plated pistol and started firing it in 
the air. 
Daniel Payne was one of the individuals struck with a 
tiki torch.  Payne heard what he thought were fireworks.  He 
proceeded up a hill to ask what was going on when someone 
                     
3 Randolph also indicated there was a second fight and 
stated that "when the gun and all that got happening, all that 
fighting started." 
7 
struck him on the side of his face with a tiki torch, which 
broke.  Payne then "went after" the man who hit him, but 
"froze up" when another individual pointed a gun into his 
chest and pulled the trigger.  Payne heard the gun click but 
it did not fire.  Payne could not identify either of those 
individuals and also did not remember whether he saw Hamilton 
at the party.  Hamilton, however, admitted seeing Scott snatch 
the pistol out of Hart's hand and, according to Hamilton, 
Scott then pointed the gun in the chest of one of the 
individuals who was hit with the tiki torch. 
Hart, who accompanied Hamilton to the party, said he 
began firing his gun into the air while Hamilton was standing 
next to him.  Hart testified that he handed the gun to Scott, 
and Hamilton tried to retrieve the gun from Scott, at Hart's 
direction.  Hart admitted previously stating that Hamilton 
actually had the gun at some point.  Scott was then tackled, 
causing the gun to fly into the air. 
Adam Switzer, who went to the party with Payne and 
witnessed this incident, saw someone fire the gun in the air 
numerous times prior to its being pointed at Payne.  According 
to Switzer, there were a "lot of people wearing red" at the 
party, "everybody" was doing hand-signs "like a symbol," and 
people were saying, "Blood-at."  Switzer, however, did not 
remember seeing Hamilton at the party. 
8 
Clement Miller also saw someone strike Payne with the 
tiki torch.  He likewise witnessed an individual hand the gun 
to another person and say, "Kill that mother-f__ker."  The 
person who took the gun then pointed it into Payne's chest and 
pulled the trigger.  At that point, "it was a big mess" 
according to Miller, and the person with the gun was tackled. 
Johnston was the other individual who was hit with the 
tiki torch.  He testified that the party was going well until 
about three o'clock in the morning when "a big fight blew up."  
Johnston stated that this fight was "the one at the end of the 
night before [the Bloods] left."  Johnston believed something 
happened to upset the group of Bloods.  He heard people saying 
"Blood-at" as if they were "trying to mimic a gun going off."  
Johnston asked the group what was occurring because he "didn't 
understand what had happened to . . . make it so extreme."  
Scott then hit him in the head with a tiki torch.  According 
to Johnston, Scott had broken his hand earlier in the evening 
and was surrounded by a group of "guys" wearing red bandanas.  
Johnston did not hear any gunfire and did not recall seeing 
Hamilton at the party. 
Katherine Duncan also saw Scott wielding a stick and 
heard him threatening people.  Duncan testified that Scott was 
in the midst of a group of people wearing red bandanas and red 
t-shirts.  According to Duncan, Hart was in the group with 
9 
Scott.  Duncan testified that Scott struck two people with the 
stick and "at one blow, the bamboo stick kind of shredded a 
little bit."  Duncan said that "[s]ome people had tried to go 
after Marty, and that's when they connected with the stick." 
Hamilton moved to strike the evidence both at the close 
of the Commonwealth's evidence and at the conclusion of all 
the evidence.  The circuit court overruled the motions.  The 
jury found Hamilton guilty of all four charges, and the 
circuit court sentenced Hamilton to a term of five years of 
incarceration for the felony conviction for participating in a 
criminal street gang and a total of 24 months of incarceration 
for the three misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery 
by a mob.  In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia upheld Hamilton's convictions, finding the evidence 
sufficient to sustain the jury verdict.  Hamilton v. 
Commonwealth, Rec. No. 1591-07-3, slip op. at 10 (Nov. 4, 
2008).  On appeal to this Court, Hamilton again challenges the 
sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
When a defendant challenges on appeal the sufficiency of 
the evidence to sustain his conviction, this Court "has a duty 
to examine all the evidence that tends to support the 
conviction."  Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144, 147, 654 
S.E.2d 584, 586 (2008).  Upon reviewing the evidence in the 
10 
light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the prevailing 
party in the trial court, we must uphold the conviction unless 
it is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.  Code 
§ 8.01-680; Tarpley v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 251, 256, 542 
S.E.2d 761, 763 (2001).  We will first address the three 
convictions for assault and battery by a mob and then turn to 
the conviction for participation in a criminal street gang.  
A.  Assault and Battery by Mob 
Each of Hamilton's convictions for assault and battery by 
a mob was pursuant to Code § 18.2-42.  That statute states: 
"Any and every person composing a mob which shall commit a 
simple assault or battery shall be guilty of a Class 1 
misdemeanor." Code § 18.2-42.  The term "mob," in relevant 
part, is defined as "[a]ny collection of people, assembled for 
the purpose and with the intention of committing an assault or 
a battery upon any person."  Code § 18.2-38.  "In order to 
sustain a conviction of assault or battery by mob under Code 
§ 18.2-42, the evidence must establish that the accused was a 
member of a mob and that the mob committed simple assault or 
battery."  Commonwealth v. Leal, 265 Va. 142, 146, 574 S.E.2d 
285, 288 (2003). 
"The statutory definition of a mob requires that the act 
of assembling be done for a specific purpose and with a 
specific intent — to commit an assault or a battery."  Harrell 
11 
v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 1, 6, 396 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1990).  
The act of assembling with that specific purpose and intent 
distinguishes mob behavior from merely individual behavior 
while part of a group.  Id. at 7, 396 S.E.2d at 683.  However, 
the group need not have originally assembled with such purpose 
and intent in mind.  Rather, "[i]t is possible that 
individuals who are lawfully assembled may become members of a 
'mob' without great deliberation."  Id.  Whether a group of 
individuals becomes a "mob" depends upon the circumstances and 
"no particular words or express agreements are required to 
effect a change in a group's purpose or intentions."  Id. at 
7-8, 396 S.E.2d at 683.  Once an assembled group becomes a mob 
under § 18.2-38, "every person composing the mob becomes 
criminally culpable even though the member may not have 
actively encouraged, aided, or countenanced the act" of 
assault or battery.  Id. at 8, 396 S.E.2d at 683.  Thus, 
"criminal accountability flows from being a member of the mob, 
regardless of whether the member aids and abets in the assault 
and battery."  Id.  
In challenging his three convictions under Code § 18.2-
42, Hamilton first contends that the Commonwealth failed to 
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a participant in 
the mob that attacked Small.  With regard to the Payne and 
Johnston attacks, Hamilton argues the evidence was 
12 
insufficient to establish that either Payne or Johnston was 
attacked by a mob, and even if they were, that he was a member 
of such mob.  We will address the convictions in that order. 
Hamilton does not dispute, and indeed the evidence 
overwhelmingly shows, that Small was assaulted by a mob.  That 
mob was composed of Blood members.  Small recounted getting 
hit by several individuals and remembered hearing someone say, 
"We ain't wearing red for nothing."  One witness estimated 
that approximately 12 people were kicking and beating Small 
and testified that "[a]ll you could see was red."  During the 
attack, several witnesses heard people yelling, "We're not 
wearing red for the hell of it."  Another witness heard 
someone wearing a red shirt yell "Dip Set" while kicking 
Small.  Small was rendered unconscious and later became aware 
that someone had burned his back with a cigarette in the shape 
of a "Trey burn."  Such a burn, according to the 
Commonwealth's expert, is a sign of retaliation for 
disrespecting the Bloods. 
Hamilton admitted being in the proximity of the attack on 
Small and recognizing Small as the victim, but he denied any 
involvement in the attack.  Stouffer, however, recalled seeing 
Hamilton standing over Small as Small was lying on the ground.  
Hamilton, Stouffer stated, had his hands near Small's back and 
was doing something other than rendering assistance to Small.  
13 
In light of the burns Small received on his back, the jury 
could reasonably conclude that Hamilton placed those burns 
there and was thus a member of the mob that assaulted and 
battered Small. 
Hamilton, however, points to the testimony of McLaughlin 
and Howdyshell, both of whom did not remember seeing Hamilton 
in the group of people attacking Small.  Hamilton also argues 
that, based on Stouffer's testimony, it was "equally likely" 
that he was assisting Small as opposed to placing burns on 
Small's back.  These assertions merely highlight the 
witnesses' different recollections of the events at the party 
and the credibility determinations the jury therefore had to 
make.  "The fact finder, who has the opportunity to see and 
hear the witnesses, has the sole responsibility to determine 
their credibility, the weight to be given their testimony, and 
the inferences to be drawn from proven facts."  Commonwealth 
v. Taylor, 256 Va. 514, 518, 506 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1998).  On 
appellate review, we do not substitute our judgment for that 
of the fact finder.  Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236, 239, 
415 S.E.2d 218, 220 (1992).  We conclude the evidence was 
sufficient to sustain Hamilton's conviction for the assault 
and battery of Small by a mob; the jury's determination that 
Hamilton was part of the mob that attacked Small was not 
14 
plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.  See Code 
§ 8.01-680. 
With regard to the Payne and Johnston attacks, Hamilton 
first asserts there was insufficient evidence to prove that 
either Payne or Johnston was assaulted by a mob.  He argues 
that the particular person who attacked Payne and Johnston did 
so as "[o]ne belligerent individual," Harrell, 11 Va. App. at 
11, 396 S.E.2d at 685, and that there was no "collection of 
people, assembled for the purpose and with the intention of 
committing an assault or battery" upon either victim, Code 
§ 18.2-38.  We do not agree. 
Payne was hit in the head with a tiki torch when he 
approached a group of people, inquiring about "[w]hat sounded 
like fireworks."  When Payne "went after" the person who 
struck him, someone else pointed a gun into his chest and 
pulled the trigger.  According to Switzer, there were "a lot 
of people wearing red," "everybody" was doing hand-signs "like 
a symbol," and people were saying "Blood-at."  In addition, 
Switzer saw one person firing the gun before a different 
individual then pointed it at Payne's chest.  Miller, in 
addition to seeing someone strike Payne with the tiki torch, 
witnessed someone hand a gun to another individual while 
saying, "Kill that mother-f__ker." 
15 
The presence of Blood members and their use of hand-signs 
and the "Blood war cry," which is specifically used to call 
other Bloods to "provide whatever . . . assistance is 
required," all demonstrate that the Blood members assembled 
for the purpose and with the intent to assault and batter 
Payne.  Even if the Blood members were lawfully assembled 
without the intent to commit an assault prior to Payne's entry 
onto the scene, the use of "Blood-at" and the instruction to 
"[k]ill that mother-f__ker" show that the group transformed 
into a "mob" under Code § 18.2-38.  Therefore, we conclude the 
jury's finding that a mob assaulted and battered Payne was not 
plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.  See Code 
§ 8.01-680. 
We reach the same conclusion with regard to the attack on 
Johnston.  He approached a group of Bloods who had become so 
upset about some happening that Johnston characterized the 
response as "extreme."  As he approached the group, Johnston 
heard people saying "Blood-at" as if they were imitating a 
"gun going off."  Hartless confirmed that the Bloods say 
"Blood-at" or "Blat" in a way to mimic gunfire.  Just as in 
the Payne attack, people shouted the "Blood war cry" to call 
their fellow Bloods to provide assistance.  Scott, a second 
lieutenant in the Bloods, then hit Johnston in the head with a 
tiki torch.  According to Johnston, Scott was surrounded by a 
16 
group of "guys" wearing red bandanas.  Duncan also testified 
that there was a group of individuals around Scott who were 
wearing red bandanas and red t-shirts and that Scott was 
threatening people as though he wanted to fight them.  Duncan 
also stated that Scott hit both Payne and Johnston, and 
Hamilton's own testimony establishes that the two attacks were 
not isolated incidents.  The evidence established that a 
"collection of people" assembled with the purpose and intent 
to commit assault or battery and was thus sufficient to prove 
that Johnston, like Payne, was assaulted and battered by a 
mob.  Code § 18.2-38. 
Hamilton contends, however, that even if a mob did 
assault and batter Payne and Johnston, the Commonwealth failed 
to prove that he was part of any such mob.  Hamilton argues 
that, because no one testified as to his presence when either 
Payne or Johnston were attacked, the jury had no basis upon 
which to conclude that he was a member of any mob that 
attacked either victim.  Hamilton further contends that he 
could be convicted of these two assaults only if the evidence 
proved both attacks occurred at the same time and the evidence 
does not support such a conclusion.  We disagree with 
Hamilton's arguments and conclude that there was sufficient 
evidence showing that Hamilton was a member of the mob that 
assaulted both Payne and Johnston. 
17 
Hamilton's testimony established that the attacks on 
Payne and Johnston occurred close in time and were committed 
by the same mob.  He described a "first fight" and the "next 
fight" as "the big fight . . . on top of the hill."4  Hamilton 
testified that, in the latter fight, he saw two individuals 
get hit with the tiki torch and at the same time witnessed 
Hart "pull out a nickel-plated pistol" and fire it into the 
air.  Hart, who went to the party with Hamilton, said Hamilton 
was standing next to him when he was firing the gun into the 
air and that Hamilton tried to get the gun from Scott.  
Hamilton himself testified that Scott took the gun from Hart, 
"had some words" with "one of the guys who got hit with the 
tiki torch," and then put "a gun to [one of] the victim[s'] 
chest[s]."  Both Hart and Hamilton then saw the gun fly into 
the air when Scott was tackled. 
Likewise, other witnesses confirmed that the same mob 
attacked Payne and Johnston and did so at about the same time.   
Duncan testified that Scott was seeking to fight people and 
that he "connected with two people," i.e., battered them, by 
using the tiki torch.  Johnston said "a big fight blew up" 
around three o'clock in the morning and he was responding to 
this "big fight" when he was struck with the tiki torch.  
                     
4 Hamilton conceded at oral argument before this Court 
that the attack on Small occurred first. 
18 
Randolph stated that the "first [fight]" was when Marty 
assaulted Small.  In response to a question about a "later 
fight," she described it as "when the gun and all that got 
happening, all that fighting started." 
Witnesses recalled seeing a group of Bloods surrounding 
Scott when he used the tiki torch to strike Payne and 
Johnston. In describing the Payne attack, Switzer stated there 
were "a lot of people wearing red" saying "Blood-at," and 
doing hand-signs "like a symbol." Johnston also heard people 
saying "Blood-at" when Scott struck him with the tiki torch.  
Both Duncan and Johnston described the individuals surrounding 
Scott as wearing red bandanas. 
Finally, evidence showed Hamilton's association with the 
Bloods at the party.  He admitted that he wore a red and black 
hat that was possibly a Boston Red Sox hat.  Hamilton also 
stated to McLaughlin, "You're a Blood and you don't even know 
it."  Hamilton and Hart came to the party together, Hamilton 
was standing next to Hart when Hart was firing the gun that 
was eventually pointed at Payne, and Duncan placed Hart in the 
group surrounding Scott. 
Based on this evidence, we conclude that Hamilton was a 
"person composing" the mob that assembled for the purpose and 
with the intent to assault or batter Payne and Johnston.  Code 
§ 18.2-42.  "Compose" means to "form the substance of: 
19 
constitute."  Webster'S Third New International Dictionary 466 
(1993).  As a part of the mob that attacked both victims, 
Hamilton is "criminally culpable" even though he may not have 
"actively encouraged, aided, or countenanced" the assaults.  
Harrell, 11 Va. App. at 8, 396 S.E.2d at 683. 
In summary, we find sufficient evidence to sustain 
Hamilton's convictions for the mob assaults of Small, Payne, 
and Johnston. 
B.  Participation in a Criminal Street Gang 
Finally, Hamilton contends that the Commonwealth failed 
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in a 
criminal street gang in violation of Code § 18.2-46.2.  
Hamilton maintains there was no evidence that he was an active 
participant or member of the Bloods, as required under the 
statute. 
Code section 18.2-46.2(A) states in part: 
Any person who actively participates in or is a 
member of a criminal street gang and who knowingly 
and willfully participates in any predicate criminal 
act committed for the benefit of, at the direction 
of, or in association with any criminal street gang 
shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. 
The offense of participating in a criminal street gang 
contains three elements that the Commonwealth must prove to 
sustain a conviction under the statute.  First, a person must 
actively participate in or be a member of a criminal street 
20 
gang.  Second, the person must knowingly and willfully 
participate in a predicate criminal act.  Third, the act must 
be committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in 
association with the gang.  The term "[p]redicate criminal 
act" is defined as, among other things, "any violation of 
§ 18.2-42", assault or battery by a mob.  Code §§ 18.2-46.1. 
Hamilton contests only the sufficiency of the evidence 
with respect to the first element: being a member or active 
participant in a criminal street gang.5  According to Hamilton, 
proof of membership or participation in a gang must be 
distinct from proof of the commission of a predicate criminal 
act for the benefit of the gang.  Otherwise, according to 
Hamilton, one of the elements would be superfluous.  Hamilton 
thus argues there must be some evidence that he participated 
                     
5 Hamilton does not dispute that the gang known as the 
Nine Trey Bloods is a "criminal street gang" under § 18.2-
46.1.  The term "[c]riminal street gang" is defined as: 
any ongoing organization, association, or group of 
three or more persons, whether formal or informal, 
(i) which has as one of its primary objectives or 
activities the commission of one or more criminal 
activities; (ii) which has an identifiable name or 
identifying sign or symbol; and (iii) whose members 
individually or collectively have engaged in the 
commission of, attempt to commit, conspiracy to 
commit, or solicitation of two or more predicate 
criminal acts, at least one of which is an act of 
violence, provided such acts were not part of a 
common act or transaction. 
Code § 18.2-46.1. 
21 
in the Bloods other than evidence that he committed one of the 
assaults.  Such evidence is not present in this case, Hamilton 
argues, because the Commonwealth's gang expert, Hartless, 
testified that Hamilton was not involved with the Bloods 
before the party.  Hamilton suggests that the only evidence 
supporting his conviction under this statute is his statement 
to McLaughlin that McLaughlin was "a Blood and [didn't] even 
know it."  That statement, Hamilton asserts, is insufficient 
to establish his membership or active participation in the 
Bloods. 
We conclude there was sufficient evidence, independent of 
the evidence showing Hamilton's criminal culpability for the 
attacks on Small, Payne, and Johnston, to establish that 
Hamilton actively participated in the Bloods at the party.  
The General Assembly, by writing the statute in the 
disjunctive, clearly contemplated either membership or 
participation as sufficient for a conviction under the 
statute.  Hamilton admitted that he came to the party wearing 
a black and red hat.  However, McLaughlin testified that 
Hamilton was dressed in a red hat and a red shirt.  Further, 
Hamilton approached McLaughlin, also dressed in red, and told 
him: "You're a Blood and you don't even know it."  In 
addition, Hamilton arrived at the party and was frequently 
seen with Hart, who witnesses established as one of the 
22 
individuals wearing red and protecting Scott.  Based on these 
facts, the jury's determination that Hamilton was an active 
participant in the Bloods was not plainly wrong or without 
evidence to support it.  See Code § 8.01-680. 
Furthermore, Hamilton's participation in the Small 
assault, which he concedes occurred first, constituted active 
participation in the Bloods, while his role in the mob that 
attacked Payne and Johnston served as the predicate criminal 
acts committed for the benefit of the Bloods.  Thus, even 
under Hamilton's theory, there was distinct evidence 
establishing both Hamilton's active participation in the 
Bloods and his commission of a predicate criminal act for the 
benefit of the Bloods. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, we hold that the evidence was 
sufficient to sustain Hamilton's three convictions for assault 
and battery by a mob in violation of Code § 18.2-42 and his 
conviction for participating in a criminal street gang in 
violation of Code § 18.2-46.2.  Thus, we will affirm the 
judgment of the Court of Appeals. 
Affirmed. 
23