Opinion ID: 2638434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of Evidence of Gang Membership

Text: Defendant next argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's membership in a Hispanic gang, claiming such evidence fanned the flames of racial fear and bigotry in the jury. Specifically, he complains about the following evidence: (i) Ruth Roberson's testimony recounting that, when defendant was living in the Lark-Ellen Home for Boys, he was a member of the 18th Street Gang; (ii) Roberson's testimony that when defendant attacked Steve Fuller in the Lark-Ellen Home for Boys, one of defendant's fellow attackers yelled, Kill the gringo, and defendant replied, I can't find my knife; (iii) testimony from Officer James Gilmartin that the area where defendant stabbed Cecelia Patchett was considered the turf of the 18th Street Gang, and that at the time Patchett was stabbed, the gang had been committing a series of strong-arm robberies on vulnerable people in the neighborhood; and (iv) testimony from David Monday that he had not been the intended victim of defendant's in-prison assault, and that defendant said he would try and straighten the matter out with the people responsible, suggesting such people were members of the Mexican Mafia. Because evidence that a criminal defendant is a member of a juvenile gang may have a `highly inflammatory impact' on the jury [citation], trial courts should carefully scrutinize such evidence before admitting it. ( People v. Champion, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 922, 39 Cal. Rptr.2d 547, 891 P.2d 93.) Such evidence should not be admitted if only tangentially relevant ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 660, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351) because of the possibility that the jury will improperly infer the defendant has a criminal disposition and is therefore guilty of the offense charged ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 193, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710) or, as relevant here, will jump to the conclusion the defendant deserves the death penalty. (See also Dawson v. Delaware (1992) 503 U.S. 159, 112 S.Ct. 1093, 117 L.Ed.2d 309 [evidence of membership in Aryan Brotherhood was not relevant to any disputed fact].) Such evidence can, however, be relevant in the penalty phase. Section 190.3 specifically provides that the jury should consider past criminal behavior involving violence or the threat of violence, and we have held that the prosecution in a capital case properly may divulge to the jury the circumstances of those prior instances of violent criminal activity. ( People v. Scott, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1218, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 240, 939 P.2d 354.) The trial court in this case carefully considered the probative value of the evidence of defendant's gang membership against its potential for prejudice and ruled the evidence admissible. The court did not abuse its discretion by so ruling. Testimony explaining the reasons for the fight at the Lark-Ellen Home for Boys and for the assaults on Patchett and Monday was relevant to show the crimes were evidently not the product of a personal grievance but of a larger social evil. ( People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 588, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142.)