Opinion ID: 1941114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Other Gang Evidence Introduced By The State

Text: DeLeon also argues irrelevancy and prejudice arising from other gang evidence introduced by the State at trial. In the words of his brief: The State repeatedly argued at trial that the gang association helped to show commonality between [DeLeon] and his co-defendants, Mr. Payne and Mr. King. Even if such commonality was relevant to an issue in the case, the State could have easily demonstrated it without mentioning gangs. Multiple witnesses testified for the State that [DeLeon] and Mr. Payne and King were always together. [DeLeon] himself admitted that he was friends with both individuals, played basketball on the same team, and was often associating with them in public. The additional information that all three wore red and were suspected gang members provided no additional probative value to the issue of commonality. The admission of such evidence merely served to prejudice the jury due to the violent reputation of gangs in general and of the Bloods in particular. Again, though, DeLeon failed to make timely objections to this testimony. As the State points out: DeLeon raised no objection to Correctional Officer Davis's testimony that she saw DeLeon together with Yusef Payne and Clister King on a daily basis, in the cafeteria and out in the yard. There was no objection to Officer Davis's testimony that the group wore red clothing or bandanas every day and that, based on her personal experience, wearing red in prison signified membership in the Bloods gang. Likewise, there was no objection to Lieutenant Perez's testimony that the Bloods operated within the Maryland prison system, that the Bloods' signature color was red, and that inmates generally were allowed to wear their colors in the yard so that the staff would know who they are and where they're at. Nor was there any objection to Lieutenant Perez's testimony that he had seen DeLeon, Payne and King wearing red at JPRU, thereby showing their colors. (Record citations omitted.) We agree with the State's conclusion that [b]ecause DeLeon lodged no objection to this evidence at trial, any appellate complaint about the admission of the evidence has been waived. Objections are waived if, at another point during the trial, evidence on the same point is admitted without objection. Peisner v. State, 236 Md. 137, 145-46, 202 A.2d 585, 590 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1001, 85 S.Ct. 721, 13 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965). DeLeon made no objection when Officer Davis testified that:  DeLeon associated with King and Payne;  DeLeon, King, and Payne wore red; and  DeLeon, King, and Payne wore red, sat together in the cafeteria, and congregated in the yard. DeLeon also remained silent when Officer Perez testified that:  There are gangs at the Maryland DOC;  He was familiar with gang signs and clothing;  The Bloods wore red and red clothing, which assisted prison officials in identifying gangs; and  He saw DeLeon and other men in his group wearing red colors at JPU. DeLeon's counsel did not object when, on cross-examination, DeLeon was asked about, and denied:  Wearing red bandanas and articles of clothing;  Seeing anyone wear a red hat, though acknowledging seeing people wear bandanas; and  Being in a gang. DeLeon also testified, without objection, that there were Bloods in the Maryland DOC and that red was one of their colors. The admission of all of this evidence without objection disallows DeLeon's challenges to any evidence of his association with King and Payne, DeLeon's use of the color red, and the implications of the color red. When Davis testified that DeLeon's prison associates were members of the Bloods, DeLeon asserted the highly prejudicial nature of being labeled as a member of a gang and his objection was sustained: [Prosecutor]: The men that you have described, other than Mr. DeLeon, did they have a reputation in the prison of being members of the Bloods? [Officer Davis]: Yes. [Defense Counsel]: I would object to that. Reputation?    [Defense Counsel]: Being labeled as a Blood member of a gang is highly prejudicial. So it is only going to be able to come in under  circumstances [sic]. Counsel is arguing that is the motive behind this that she may or may not be able to get out from the victim. But to have this witness testify based upon her expertise and  therefore he is a member of the Bloods would be so prejudicial that, in my opinion, it could cause a mistrial. As a result of this objection, the court limited Davis to her observations that may suggest gang membership. This led to further discussion: [Defense Counsel]: If she was coming forward with a card that says I'm a member of the Bloods or that he made an acknowledgment that he is in the Bloods, I would have no legitimate objection. Other than that I think I do. [Prosecutor]: But these are secretive groups. [Court]:  their cards are worn around their head and the bands [sic]. And I think that you are free  [Prosecutor]: Okay. [Court]: I mean based on  [inaudible] so far. [Prosecutor]: Okay. [Court]: You are free to  [inaudible] facts that suggest that she has made observations. [Prosecutor]: Okay. [Court]: Or heard things from him or there are other ways that she can  that might tend to get to where you want to go in terms of membership. (Emphasis added.) DeLeon did not argue at trial that the ensuing testimony  limited by the trial court to personal observations  was inadmissible. Because this testimony was admitted without objection, it is unpreserved for our review. JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.