Opinion ID: 2575997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Claims of prosecutorial misconduct relating to testimony of John Hancock

Text: Sacramento County Sheriff's Detective Richard Matranga interviewed John Hancock twice while Hancock was in custody. At trial, on direct examination by the prosecution, Hancock denied telling Detective Matranga that defendant had told him about shooting an old man and taking his wallet, and that defendant had showed him a gun. On cross-examination by the defense, Hancock testified that he was defendant's best friend, that he would never give the police a statement about defendant's admitting anything, and that he would do time before he would snitch somebody off. On redirect examination by the prosecution, Hancock denied telling Detective Matranga about his involvement in a shoot-out with someone named Kiyoka at the apartment of Ron Woods. He also denied telling Matranga about another shooting involving a man named Loaf. The prosecution next called Detective Matranga as a witness. Matranga testified that Hancock told him that he ran the Sacramaniac gang; that Hancock showed him two gang tattoos, one on his back and one on his penis; that Hancock told him that defendant bragged about the murder and showed Hancock a gun; and that Hancock provided details of the shoot-out at Woods's apartment involving Hancock, Woods, and a man named Kiyoka. Hancock also told Detective Matranga about a shooting involving a man named Loaf. Defendant argues it was misconduct for the prosecutor to elicit the testimony concerning Hancock's gang affiliation and gang tattoos. He contends the testimony was irrelevant. We disagree. We recognize that evidence of gang affiliation creates a risk that the jury will infer a defendant's criminal disposition from the evidence and decide guilt of the offense charged based on that inference. As we have held previously, evidence of criminal disposition is inadmissible to prove commission of a specific act. ( People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 193, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710.) Gang affiliation evidence that is otherwise relevant, however, is admissible, although subject to trial court scrutiny because of its highly inflammatory impact. ( Ibid.; People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 921-923, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93.) Here, evidence of Hancock's gang affiliation was relevant (Evid.Code, ง 210), because the affiliation of Hancock and defendant with the same gang explained why defendant would have made incriminating statements about his involvement in the murder to Hancock. Likewise misplaced is defendant's claim that the prosecutor on direct examination of Detective Matranga committed misconduct by eliciting testimony about Hancock's involvement in the shoot-out at Ron Woods's apartment and the shooting involving an individual nicknamed Loaf. This testimony impeached the inconsistent statements Hancock made earlier while testifying on redirect examination by the prosecution.