Opinion ID: 2373689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In Association with the Gang

Text: The lack of evidence the crimes were committed for the benefit of Southside Chiques would not be fatal if the evidence supported a finding defendants acted in association with a criminal street gang. But again, the prosecutor produced no evidence on the point. There was no showing Southside Chiques, as an organization, was involved in or even aware of the crimes until sometime after they were committed. Indeed, the evidence was that Southside Chiques would not engage in sexual assaults and would disapprove of the offenses. The prosecutor avoided the problem by providing the jury with a meaning of the phrase in association with that did not require such evidence, explaining: Association has a plain, common, ordinary meaning. Two or more gang members is an association. All three Defendants are active participants in the SouthSide Chiques. They were aware obviously by their living status, by their knowledge of each other, by their group tie that [each] one is a member of SouthSide Chiques. It's obvious that they know that the . . . other two . . . are also members of the SouthSide Chiques. [¶] They commit the crime in concert with each other, in association with each other. They combinethey pooled their strength, they combined their muscle, they counted on each other's loyalty to be there and back them up, and it's easier to divide labor that way and [successfully complete] the crime. They do this crime in close proximity to each other, and they're assisting each other in committing the crime. This explanation allowed the jury to find that defendants, knowing of each other's gang membership and acting togetherpooling their strength and assisting each other in the commission of the crimesacted in association with the gang. In so doing, it collapsed the requirement of the second prong of section 186.22, subdivision (b)that each defendant act to promote, further or assist in criminal conduct by gang members, a finding supported by the evidencewith the requirement of the first prongthat the defendants committed the crimes in association with the gang, a finding having no evidentiary support. What the Legislature intended by in association with any criminal street gang is unclear, but that it meant acting in association with members of a criminal street gang is unlikely. That the Legislature distinguishes between the gang and members of the gang is shown by its use of both terms throughout section 186.22, including subdivision (b). Indeed, as indicated above, interpreting criminal street gang in subdivision (b) to mean  members of a criminal street gang creates a redundancy in the provision, as the second prong of section 186.22, subdivision (b) already requires that the crime have been committed with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.  (Italics added.) The majority provides a different definition of in association with a gang, explaining it means that in committing the offenses defendants relied on their common gang membership and the apparatus of the gang. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 60.) Again, by focusing on gang members as associating with one another, rather than as associating with the gang, the majority's definition also threatens to render a portion of section 186.22, subdivision (b) redundant. Finally, the majority's interpretation, whatever its merit, was not provided to the jury. Thus, in finding the enhancements true, the jury necessarily relied on the construction of the phrase provided by the prosecutor, a construction neither consistent with the statute nor endorsed by the majority. Hence, on this ground alone the enhancement should be reversed.