Opinion ID: 2639482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence of Gang Membership

Text: Defendant moved in limine to exclude all evidence of gang membership. [4] After a hearing, the trial court ruled that the prosecution could produce evidence that defendant belonged to a gang, that the gang was formed in 1988, that the gang's name was 211 187 Hard Way Gangster Crips.... The prosecution did so. Defendant argues that the admission of this evidence unconstitutionally denied him due process of law, a fair trial, and a reliable guilt and penalty determination. The prosecution argued gang membership was essential to show the relationship between the individuals involved in the Mad Greek Restaurant and Domino's Pizza robberies, and in particular the relationship between defendant and Eric Bailey, who according to the prosecution was the second Domino's Pizza robber. The prosecution presented a photograph of defendant and Bailey that the two had captioned tag-team robbers. The trial judge observed that the name of the gang, with its reference to sections 187 (murder) and 211 (robbery), was relevant to show that when committing a robbery, the gang members planned in advance to kill victims and witnesses. In support of his argument that gang evidence was relevant, the prosecutor said he might introduce statements from defendant showing that the robbery at the Mad Greek Restaurant was a gang action. He also said he would present evidence from Joe Vargo, a newspaper reporter, who had talked to several gang members about their activities. (It is disputed whether defendant was one of the members who talked to Vargo.) At trial, however, the prosecution did not offer any admissions by defendant that the Mad Greek Restaurant robbery was a gang action. Vargo invoked the protection of the reporter's shield law (Evid.Code, § 1070) and refused to testify. In his opening statement, the prosecutor described the testimony he expected from Joe Vargo. Defendant argues that if his counsel had interviewed Vargo, he would have realized that Vargo would refuse to testify. Counsel then would have known that he could object to the prosecutor's description. There is, however, no evidence in this record that counsel did not interview Vargo before trial, or that counsel lacked a tactical reason for failing to object. Thus on the appellate record defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected. Defendant quotes People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 660, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351, which said: When offered by the prosecution, we have condemned the introduction of evidence of gang membership if only tangentially relevant, given its highly inflammatory impact. But here the evidence was more than merely tangentially relevant to premeditation, which was at issue as to both the Domino's Pizza murder and the attempted murder charges arising from the Mad Greek Restaurant robbery, because the gang's name itself is evidence of premeditation. Under such circumstances, the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the evidence. (See People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 922, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93.) The defense notes that when the prosecutor rested his case, he elected to proceed solely on a felony-murder theory for the murder of Herman Weeks, at Domino's Pizza. Defendant argues that once the prosecutor elected to prosecute the Domino's Pizza killing as a felony murder, the trial court should have reconsidered its ruling sua sponte and excluded the gang membership evidence. Under a felony-murder theory, the prosecution need not prove intent to kill, so the theory that the name of defendant's gang, the 211 187 Hard Way Gangster Crips, implied a premeditated intent to kill during a robbery was no longer relevant to defendant's guilt of the Weeks killing. That reasoning, however, would remain relevant to both the Mad Greek Restaurant attempted murder charges, and to the felony-murder special circumstance for the Weeks killing. (See pt. VII., post. ) The defense did not ask the trial court for an instruction limiting the gang membership evidence to the felony-murder special circumstances and the Mad Greek Restaurant attempted murders; the court had no duty to give such a limiting instruction without request. ( People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 130-131, 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 554, 833 P.2d 561; People v. Collie (1981) 30 Cal.3d 43, 64, 177 Cal.Rptr. 458, 634 P.2d 534.) In his closing argument at the guilt phase of defendant's trial, the prosecutor said that defendant's gang was formed immediately before the robberies involved in this case and that defendant was the one who named it the 211 187 Hard Way Gangster Crips. Defendant argues that his attorney should have objected to both statements as unsupported by the evidence. The prosecutor's comment was a trivial exaggeration. The evidence shows that the gang was formed in 1988 and the robberies occurred in January of 1989 soon after the gang was formed, if not exactly immediately after its formation. The gang was created by defendant, Bailey, and another person, Montrell. When the gang had only three members, it was known as Three the Hard Way. Later it was named the 211 187 Hard Way Gangster Crips. The record does not indicate whether defendant personally proposed that name, or whether he simply agreed to someone else's proposal. Because the record does not show whether defense counsel had a tactical purpose in not objecting to the prosecutor's statements, we cannot find ineffective assistance of counsel on the record before us. ( People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 266-267, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134.)