Opinion ID: 1666976
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Gang Testimony

Text: Appellant contends that the district court erred when it admitted certain exhibits and other lay testimony regarding the MOD gang because he stipulated to being a MOD member. The State introduced certain exhibits gathered while executing search warrants of the homes of appellant and Grogan Yang, Sai Vang, and Jason Moua. The exhibits included a CD that was accompanied by a song list. The lyrics of the first song were played several times at trial and included the phrases, grab your Glocks when you see MOD and call the cops when you see 301. The State presented lay testimony regarding the meaning of the MOD, how one could join the MOD gang, and the MOD's identification with specific tattoos, hand signs, and the number 301. Several witnesses testified that they were convicted of crimes committed for the benefit of the MOD gang. Generally, a defendant's offer to stipulate in a criminal case should not result in limiting the introduction of relevant evidence, particularly where the evidence is relevant to other issues not covered by the stipulation. State v. Davidson, 351 N.W.2d 8, 10 (Minn.1984) (citing State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411, 421, 205 N.W.2d 667, 675 (1973)). But evidence that is not relevant should not be received. Id. Further, under Minn. R. Evid. 403, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Here, the exhibits and testimony introduced helped to establish that one of the MOD's primary activities was to commit crimes, that it had a common identifying sign or symbol, and that it was composed of members who individually or collectively engaged in criminal activity. Thus, we conclude that this evidence was relevant to issues other than those covered by the stipulation and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.