Opinion ID: 891589
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the expert's testimony was unfairly prejudicial

Text: {26} Although gang expert testimony may be allowable to prove motive under Rule 11-404(B), it must still satisfy the requirements of Rule 11-403, which mandates exclusion if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See Nieto, 2000-NMSC-031, ¶ 26 (subjecting gang expert's testimony admitted to prove motive to Rule 11-403 balancing). Here, the probative value of Detective Martinez's testimony was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because there was no evidence presented at trial that Defendant was a gang member at the time of the shooting, the party was a gang party, or the shooting was in any way gang-related. {27} [T]he allegation that a defendant is in a gang ought not serve as a justification for extensive expert testimony regarding criminal gangs. State v. DeShay, 669 N.W.2d 878, 887 (Minn.2003); see also Utz v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 411, 505 S.E.2d 380, 385 (1998) (recognizing that evidence identifying a defendant as a member of a gang may be prejudicial, since juries may associate such groups with criminal activity and improperly convict on the basis of inferences as to the defendant's character (citation omitted)). Thus, [t]he district court should scrutinize proffered gang expert testimony, preferably outside the presence of the jury, and exclude it where irrelevant, confusing, or otherwise unhelpful. DeShay, 669 N.W.2d at 888 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Gang expert testimony must be carefully monitored by the court so that the testimony will not unduly influence the jury or dissuade it from exercising its independent judgment. Id. {28} Here, the probative value of Detective Martinez's testimony would have been significant if the State had offered other evidence that the shooting was gang-related. The purpose of the expert's testimony was to prove that Defendant returned to the party with the intention of shooting at the house in retribution for having been disrespected. However, the probative value of this testimony was contingent upon the State offering additional evidence that Defendant was in fact a gang member at the time of the shooting or that the shooting was somehow related to gang rituals, rivalries, procedures, or other aspects of gang culture. Absent corroborative evidence that the incident was influenced by a gang's code of conduct or other criminal aspects of gang culture, the risk that Defendant was convicted because he was, or at one time had been, a member of a gang is too great to allow the evidence to be put before the jury. See State v. Cox, 258 Kan. 557, 908 P.2d 603, 609 (1995) (Gang evidence is only admissible where there is sufficient proof that membership or activity is related to the crime charged.). {29} At Defendant's trial, there was no evidence presented supporting the State's theory that Defendant was a member of BST or any other gang at the time of the shooting. Evidence was presented that on the night of the shooting, Defendant admitted to having been in BST at one time, an admission he confirmed with his testimony. The State also presented evidence of Defendant's BST tattoo. However, the State never connected that tattoo with his continued membership in BST, and the State did not present any evidence that Defendant was a member of another gang at the time of the shooting. Thus, even considering Detective Martinez's testimony, the State produced no evidence of Defendant's gang membership at the time he shot at the house. {30} In addition, the State produced no evidence that the Halloween party was a gang party, such that the shooting was somehow connected to gang rivalry or other gang rituals or procedures. Indeed, testimony was presented that while members of one or more unidentified gangs were at the party, it was not a gang party. Testimony was also given that the shooting itself was not gang-related. Furthermore, the men who threatened and shot at Defendant and his companions were not identified, and their membership in any gang was unknown. Similarly, the party's hosts were never identified as members of BST or any other gang. Finally, the State's expert did not testify that the shooting itself was related to gang rivalry or other gang rituals. {31} Because no evidence was presented that Defendant was a member of any gang at the time of the shooting, the party was a gang party, or the shooting was gang-related, Detective Martinez's testimony regarding Defendant's motive was largely, if not entirely, irrelevant. See, e.g., Cox, 908 P.2d at 611 (holding that because [n]o evidence was introduced... to suggest that the motive for the killing was gang related ...[,] the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the gang expert testimony). While Detective Martinez's testimony was relevant to show that Defendant was a member of BST, his testimony regarding Defendant's motive was irrelevant because the State offered no evidence that Defendant was a gang member at the time of the shooting. In the absence of supporting evidence, the expert's testimony unfairly prejudiced Defendant by asking the jury to find that Defendant was a member of a gang and to conclude that he acted in accordance with the gang's code of conduct. {32} Evidence of a defendant's gang affiliation is likely to be damaging to a defendant in the eyes of the jury because [g]angs generally arouse negative connotations and often invoke images of criminal activity and deviant behavior. United States v. Irvin, 87 F.3d 860, 864, 865 (7th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There is therefore always the possibility that a jury will attach a propensity for committing crimes to defendants who are affiliated with gangs or that a jury's negative feelings toward gangs will influence its verdict. Id. at 865. In Defendant's case, we are especially wary of the threat of guilt by association because Defendant's intent was the primary issue to be resolved at trial. See State v. Phillips, 2000-NMCA-028, ¶ 29, 128 N.M. 777, 999 P.2d 421 ([A] real threat of guilt by association may exist where the defendant's gang membership is the entire theme of the trial. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). As a result, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Detective Martinez's expert testimony on gang culture and gang-related law enforcement. See State v. Chamberlain, 112 N.M. 723, 726, 819 P.2d 673, 676 (1991) ([I]n applying Rule [11-]403, ... [e]vidence should be excluded if it is calculated to arouse the prejudices and passions of the jury and [is] not reasonably relevant to the issues of the case. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).