Opinion ID: 2185279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Irrelevant Gang Evidence

Text: Defendant next claims that he was denied a fair trial when the State elicited testimony from him regarding his affiliation with the Latin Kings, and when it made reference to defendant's nickname in its closing argument. Prior to trial, the court reserved a ruling on defendant's motion in limine to exclude any evidence relating to defendant's gang membership and gang involvement. At trial, the State called Victor Cervantes to testify regarding defendant's August 1995 escape from the Cook County jail, which evidence was admissible for the limited purpose of showing defendant's consciousness of guilt. On direct examination, Cervantes stated that he was attending a party near the jail when he saw defendant standing on a corner. Cervantes did not know defendant, but approached him on the corner where they spoke briefly. Cervantes then invited defendant to the party. Later, defendant asked Cervantes for a ride, and Cervantes arranged for his brother to drop defendant off at a house approximately 1½ miles away. On cross-examination, defense counsel raised the unlikelihood that Cervantes would be so helpful to a total stranger. After a sidebar, the court allowed Cervantes to testify as to the fact that he and defendant were both members of the Latin Kings for the purpose of explaining why he would invite defendant inside and offer him help. Cervantes stated that, during his initial conversation with defendant, defendant showed Cervantes a tattoo, proving his membership in the Latin Kings. Cervantes added that his brother agreed to give defendant a ride because of their mutual membership in the gang. Defendant does not complain of Cervantes' testimony, but claims that during the State's cross-examination of defendant, it overstepped the limited purpose for which the trial court had allowed evidence of his gang affiliation, that limited purpose being to rebut the insinuation that Cervantes was not testifying truthfully. Specifically, defendant claims error with regard to the following, raised by the State during its cross-examination of defendant: (1) that defendant's nickname Rush is an acronym for Royalty Under Supreme Heritage, a Latin Kings name; (2) that defendant has a Latin Kings tattoo; (3) that fellow Latin Kings members gave defendant a gun and $1,000 to help him flee to Texas after his escape from jail; and (4) that Latin Kings in Texas helped defendant hide. Additionally, defendant complains of several references to his nickname Rush during the State's closing and rebuttal closing arguments. Defendant concedes that he opened the door to the introduction of gang evidence through his cross-examination of Cervantes, but argues that once the State cleared up any false impression induced by Cervantes' testimony, any further evidence about gangs was irrelevant and prejudicial. The State responds that, based on the insinuations which arose during defendant's cross-examination of Cervantes, the State was properly allowed to introduce evidence of defendant's gang membership in order to explain how and why defendant received help when he escaped and to demonstrate defendant's consciousness of guilt. We agree with the State. Evidence of gang affiliation is admissible as long as the relevance of the evidence is established. People v. Towns, 174 Ill.2d 453, 477, 221 Ill.Dec. 419, 675 N.E.2d 614 (1996). In the instant case, once defense counsel suggested that Victor Cervantes' testimony was not credible by remarking on the unlikelihood that he would assist a total stranger, the trial court found gang evidence rebutting this suggestion admissible. Evidentiary rulings of this nature will not be overturned on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. People v. Gonzalez, 142 Ill.2d 481, 489-90, 154 Ill.Dec. 643, 568 N.E.2d 864 (1991). Here, we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion. Further evidence that other total strangers, some as far away as Texas, provided defendant assistance solely because of his affiliation in the same gang serves to reinforce Cervantes' testimony that he did the same, rebutting the implication, raised during defendant's own cross-examination of Cervantes, that he was testifying untruthfully. Furthermore, we note that defendant has waived any claim of error relating to the State's use of his nickname Rush during closing arguments by failing to raise it in his post-trial motion. See People v. Williams, 181 Ill.2d 297, 322, 229 Ill.Dec. 898, 692 N.E.2d 1109 (1998). Defendant also waived any claim of error regarding his Latin Kings tattoo by not objecting to the State's questioning of him on this issue during cross-examination. Additionally, any statements by defendant regarding his tattoo were cumulative of the properly admitted testimony of Victor Cervantes that he identified defendant's gang membership by his tattoo. Similarly, defendant's statement during cross-examination that his nickname is Rush, a Latin Kings acronym for Royalty Under Supreme Heritage, was cumulative of earlier testimony by Patty Farias and Paul Hernandez that they both call defendant Rush. While the jury was not aware at this point what Rush stood for, they were already aware of defendant's membership in the Latin Kings. Thus, the fact that Rush was a Latin Kings name added nothing new and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing this evidence.