Opinion ID: 1058258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Participation in a Criminal Street Gang

Text: 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 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 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 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.