Opinion ID: 2639525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Admission of Gang Evidence

Text: Winston argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning gang membership and gang activity. The first step in determining if evidence is admissible is to determine whether the evidence is relevant. Unless otherwise provided by statute, constitutional prohibition, or court decision, all relevant evidence is admissible. Because relevancy is a matter of logic and experience, the determination of relevancy is generally seen as inherently discretionary. A trial court's discretion must be guided by the considerations imposed by prior case law and by the rules of evidence. State v. Goodson, (No. 92,662, this day decided), Syl. ¶ 6. Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact. Materiality requires that the fact proved be significant under the substantive law of the case and properly at issue. While an [evidentiary] fact may be relevant under the rules of logic, it is not material unless it has a legitimate and effective bearing on the decision of the ultimate facts in issue. Goodson, Syl. ¶ 7. Evidence that a defendant is a gang affiliate or is associated with gang-related activity may be relevant when the evidence provides a motive for an otherwise inexplicable act, forms a part of the events surrounding the commission of the crime, or shows witness bias. Goodson, Syl. ¶ 8. For evidence of gang affiliation to be admissible there must be sufficient proof that gang membership or activity is related to the crime charged. Goodson, Syl. ¶ 9. Winston argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting gang evidence because the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was a gang member and that the crimes charged were related to gang activity. The State contends this issue was not properly preserved for appeal because Winston failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the admission of testimony at trial that he was affiliated with a gang. Although the defendant raised this issue through a pretrial motion in limine, a contemporaneous objection at trial to the evidence was still required in order to preserve the issue for appeal. See State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166, 176, 960 P.2d 1271 (1998) (issue of the admissibility of evidence of gang affiliation not preserved where there was no timely objection to the evidence when it was presented at trial); State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156, 166, 834 P.2d 342 (1992), modified on other grounds State v. Willis, 254 Kan. 119, 864 P.2d 1198 (1993) (although issue of admissibility of gang membership was raised in a motion in limine, it is not preserved for appeal where the evidence of gang membership was admitted without objection). The admissibility of the evidence could also have been preserved by a request for a continuing objection. `If a continuing objection is lodged, failure to object when the evidence is subsequently readmitted does not bar raising the issue on appeal.' State v. Branning, 271 Kan. 877, 880, 26 P.3d 673 (2001) (quoting McKissick v. Frye, 255 Kan. 566, 582, 876 P.2d 1371 [1994]). Although counsel did not make repeated contemporaneous objections each time gang evidence came up, nor did he specifically request a continuing objection, the objections that were made were obvious attempts to renew the pretrial gang evidence objection and, therefore, should be considered sufficient to preserve the issue for review. See State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 979, 897 P.2d 152 (1995), overruled on other grounds State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (K.S.A. 60-455 issue preserved for appeal where defendant renewed his earlier objections to such evidence at trial); State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830, 840, 896 P.2d 1059 (1995) (issue not preserved for appeal where the defendant's pretrial objection to the evidence was not renewed ). The overall purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule was served in this case. The objections related back to the pretrial motion and were sufficient to give the court an opportunity to change its mind on the admissibility of gang evidence. See State v. Parker, 277 Kan. 838, 845, 89 P.3d 622 (2004) ([T]he rationale underlying the contemporaneous objection rule is to permit the trial court to avert error by precluding improper evidence. [Citation omitted.]). Winston argues that gang evidence was not admissible because the State failed to sufficiently prove that he was a gang member and that the crime was gang-related, citing Tran, 252 Kan. 494, Syl. ¶ 6 (Gang evidence relevant to show a motive for an otherwise inexplicable act is only admissible where there is sufficient proof that such membership or activity is related to the crime charged.). The defendant contends the State failed to meet this foundational threshold because it did not provide any convincing evidence that he was a gang member, nor was there any evidence the crime was gang related. He contends that Detective Babcock's testimony that Winston was an associate of the Hilltop gang was not supported by anything of substance because he did not have gang tattoos and had not declared any gang affiliation. He argues that Detective Babcock's testimony only established, at most, that he associated with known gang member Tatum. The State asserts that the defendant's factual argument is flawed because it mentions only Detective Babcock's trial testimony. The State argues the defendant ignores the fact that the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of gang evidence was based on the more extensive evidence presented at the pretrial hearing, which showed that Detective Babcock's opinion that Winston was associated with Hilltop was based on an additional gang affiliation indicator  not admitted at trial  that he participated in criminal activities with Hilltop associates. The State also contends the defendant's argument ignores the evidence from Walls that both codefendants belonged to Hilltop and other testimony on the connection between Hilltop, these defendants, and the shooting. The defendant did not file a reply brief or otherwise provide any explanation or argument to justify relying only on Detective Babcock's trial testimony in arguing there was insufficient evidence that Winston was affiliated with a gang. The trial court in this case made a pretrial determination that gang evidence was admissible based, in part, on evidence that was not presented to the jury because it concerned evidence of other crimes under K.S.A. 60-455. The defendant ignores that evidence in its argument to the court on appeal that there was not a sufficient foundation justifying the admission of gang evidence, while the State takes issue with the omission and directs the court to that evidence. The defendant relies on State v. Pham, 27 Kan. App. 2d 996, 10 P.3d 780 (2000), as a case in which the admission of gang evidence was found to be an abuse of discretion. Although not cited by the defendant, State v. Cox, 258 Kan. 557, 908 P.2d 603 (1995), is also a relevant case on the issue of the sufficiency of predicate proof of gang affiliation necessary for the admission of gang evidence. In Cox, the defendant and four other young people encountered the victim Marcus Smith, surrounded his car, ordered him out and onto the ground at gunpoint, got into his car, and then shot him as they sped away. Cox and three of the four others were tried jointly. The State's theory was that the carjacking was gang activity. The State's only evidence that Cox was a gang member was Cox's statement that he belonged to three rap groups, and the testimony of a gang expert that gang members sometimes say they belong to rap groups. Additionally, there was no evidence any of the other defendants who were part of the group that night were gang members, nor any evidence suggesting that the motive for the crime was gang related. The court held the trial court abused its discretion in admitting gang evidence: While there was evidence suggesting that the defendants and Kilo were acting in concert, there was no evidence suggesting either gang involvement or gang motivation. The fact that there was evidence suggesting a conspiracy between young people to commit a crime does not make expert testimony regarding gangs relevant. The logic used to find relevancy is flawed. The State through the testimony of its gang expert advanced the premise that a person who belongs to a rap group is a member of a gang: Cox belongs to a rap group; therefore, Cox, the other three defendants, and Kilo are members of a gang. Cox, 258 Kan. at 565. In Pham, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that the defendant and his companions had gang nicknames because: there was no predicate proof that this crime was in any way gang-related, much less that Pham's gang membership or activity supplied a motive for an otherwise inexplicable act. [Citation omitted.] . . . In these circumstances, the evidence of gang names had zero probative value. 27 Kan. App. 2d at 1002. This case differs substantially from Cox, where the only evidence that the defendant was a gang member was based on a faulty inference. In this case, there was evidence that Winston and his codefendant were affiliated with a gang. The defendant's argument that the evidence he was associated with a gang was not based on convincing evidence because he did not have some of the gang affiliation indicators such as tattoos, claiming membership, or wearing gang colors, goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. See 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence § 309, p. 323 (Matters tending to reduce or enhance the apparent probative value of evidence affect only the weight of such evidence and not its admissibility.). Cf. State v. Dykes, 252 Kan. 556, 562, 847 P.2d 1214 (1993) (challenge to the reliability of DNA testimony based on population studies statistics goes to its weight, not its admissibility); State v. Weigel, 228 Kan. 194, 199, 612 P.2d 636 (1980) (completeness of the witness' identification of the accused's voice goes to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility); State v. Miesbauer, 3 Kan. App. 2d 53, 55, 588 P.2d 953 (1979) (witnesses' inability to distinguish between behavior caused by intoxication and behavior caused by injuries received in the accident goes to the weight of the evidence of the defendant's behavior and not to its admissibility). Further, in contrast to both Cox and Pham, there was abundant evidence suggesting the motivation for this crime was gang related. At Oak Park Mall, Winston and Tatum, acting together, referenced the prior gang-related murder of Walls' brother Messy Marvin and made a veiled threat that Walls would soon be facing the same fate. Then, just several months later, Walls was shot at in a gang-style ambush attack, and the shooters were identified as Winston and Tatum. The mall incident was pivotal, as it supported the identity evidence, provided evidence of motive, and made the gang-related circumstances surrounding Marvin's murder relevant to provide the necessary context to the threats. To understand the full import of what the codefendants had indicated to Walls at the mall and why they would make such threats to Walls, it was necessary to understand the circumstances behind the gang-related murder of Walls' brother and how the dispute that underlay that killing could expand to become a threat to Walls. Thus, the Oak Park Mall incident suggested the gang-related motivation for the crime, rendering the gang evidence relevant. In summary, the defendant fails to carry his burden to show the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the gang evidence in this case. Sufficient predicate proof was shown that both Winston and Tatum were associated with the Hilltop gang and that their gang affiliation and activity was related to the crime charged.