Opinion ID: 1797728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant was denied a fair trial by the state's repeated argument and introduction of evidence concerning his position as an Original Gangster in the Rollin' 60's gang. Alternatively, trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to timely object.

Text: Before trial, the state filed notice of its intent to introduce evidence of other crimes during both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. Defense counsel did not request a hearing regarding the admissibility of the evidence. See State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126, 130 (La.1973). [4] Moreover, defense counsel did not object to much of the testimony during trial which established the defendant was a member of the Rollin' 60's Crips, that his street name was Mad Monsta Crip, and that he was an Original Gangster, a leader of the gang. Defendant also asserts trial counsel failed to object during the prosecution's closing argument which contained eleven references to defendant as the Mad Monster and two references to him as the Original Gangster. Although defendant argues on appeal his membership in the Rollin' 60's was irrelevant, inadmissible other crimes evidence, the record reveals trial counsel failed to object contemporaneously to the admission of the gang evidence and consequently, the claim is not reviewable. La.C.Cr.P. art. 841; State v. Taylor, 93-2201 (La.2/28/96), 669 So.2d 364, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 162, 136 L.Ed.2d 106, reh. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 546, 136 L.Ed.2d 429 (1996). Nevertheless, defendant argues various objections and motions for mistrials made by trial counsel adequately preserved the error for review. Although trial counsel did object sporadically to the introduction of gang evidence, not once did trial counsel base a contemporaneous objection on the erroneous introduction of other crimes evidence and cite La.C.E. art. 404(B). In one cited portion, trial counsel argued the admissibility of defendant's letters to his former girlfriend and her sister, not the admissibility of his gangster status as other crimes. Further, in trial counsel's first motion for a mistrial, made after the prosecution's opening statement, counsel argued mainly that the state's reference to defendant as the Mad Monsta Crip was overly prejudicial. He also asserted somewhat vaguely that the reference probably falls within Article 2, referring to other crimes. The trial court ruled the objection was untimely because it was not made contemporaneously with the opening statement. In his second motion for a mistrial, made after the prosecution introduced the gang affiliation sheet, trial counsel argued the reference to defendant's gang membership was an improper attack on defendant's character, not because it was improper other crimes evidence, but because defendant had not yet opened the door. Consequently, his objections do not preserve the error for review under Taylor. Recognizing this deficiency, defendant argues trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object contemporaneously to the admission of gang evidence. A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is properly raised in an application for post conviction relief. State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449 (La.1983). This enables the judge to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the matter. State v. Seiss, 428 So.2d 444 (La. 1983). In our view, the record does not contain sufficient information to rule on this issue. Consequently, this argument is best relegated to post-conviction relief. This assignment of error lacks merit.