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

Heading: Expert Gang Testimony

Text: Appellant contends that Sergeant Straka's expert gang testimony (1) was duplicative, (2) caused the jury to convict him because he was in a gang, and (3) improperly stated a legal opinion. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702 provides that an expert may testify in the form of an opinion if his or her scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The ultimate question of admissibility is whether the expert's testimony will help the jury evaluate evidence or resolve factual issues. DeShay, 669 N.W.2d at 884. Gang expert testimony is admissible only when it adds precision or depth to the jury's ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within its experience. Id. at 888. Straka, who was employed by the gang unit of the St. Paul Police Department, testified regarding the history of the MOD gang in Minnesota, and its association with the numbers 301, tattoos, colors, and hand signs. He testified that the primary activity of the MOD is [t]o commit violent crimes, and to protect each other. When asked if he was familiar with whether or not members of the MOD gang individually or collectively have engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior, Straka responded that numerous members of the MOD gang had been suspects and convicted of crimes for the benefit of a gang under Minn.Stat. § 609.229. The district court concluded that Straka's testimony was admissible because there was conflicting evidence regarding whether the MOD was a criminal gang, whether it had a common identifying sign or symbol, and whether it existed to commit violent acts. On this record, the testimony was not duplicative of evidence that had already been established by lay witness testimony. Rather, it was necessary to establish the elements of the for-the-benefit-of-a-gang statute. See 714 N.W.2d at 692. Second, appellant contends that the jury was encouraged to convict him because he was a member of the MOD gang. Appellant cites State v. Blanche, where we concluded that it was error, albeit harmless, for an expert witness to testify that criminal gangs in general engage in criminal activities, shoot at each other, and retaliate against rival gangs to gain respect, because there was a risk that the jury would assume the defendant was the shooter just because he was in a gang. 696 N.W.2d 351, 373-74 (Minn.2005). Here, while Straka briefly testified about the history of Asian gangs and that gangs use colors and hand signs to indicate gang membership, his primary testimony was specific and focused on the MOD gang. Thus, Blanche is distinguishable. Finally, appellant contends that it was improper for Straka to express his opinion that the MOD gang's primary activity was to commit violent crimes and to protect each other. Under Minn. R. Evid. 704, an expert may give his or her opinion as to an ultimate fact issue in the case if such testimony is helpful to the fact finder. Expert opinion testimony is not helpful if the subject of the testimony is within the knowledge and experience of a lay jury and the testimony of the expert will not add precision or depth to the jury's ability to reach conclusions about that subject which is within their experience. State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733, 740 (Minn.2005) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this helpfulness test, we have not allowed ultimate conclusion testimony which embraces legal conclusions or terms of art or which simply tells the jury what conclusion to reach. Id. (holding it was improper to allow doctor to testify that victim's injury met the legal definition of great bodily harm) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227, 230-31, 231 n. 5 (Minn.1982) (holding that expert's conclusion that victim was raped was a legal conclusion which was of no use to the jury). We conclude that it is improper for an expert to express an opinion that the MOD is a criminal gang under the statute, or that a defendant committed a crime to benefit a criminal gang because these opinions are the ultimate conclusions reserved for the jury. But it is not improper for an expert to testify regarding the underlying facts necessary to determine whether the MOD is a criminal gang or that a defendant committed a crime for the benefit of a gang. For example, an expert may present testimony as to the activities of a group, whether the group has a common name, sign, or symbol, and whether the group members individually or collectively engage in criminal activity. Here, Straka expressed his opinion that the primary activities of the MOD were to commit violent crimes and to protect each other. Because he was not asked to express an opinion on the ultimate issues in the case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Straka's testimony.