Court Opinion

ID: 9721161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:49:57.18041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.747673
License: Public Domain

WALLIN, J.
—I concur in the result only, making the following observations about the majority opinion.
I1
Much of the officers’ “expert” testimony was rank regurgitation of hearsay coming from highly unreliable sources—rival gang members. The majority opinion glosses over this fact, but should not. However, any error was harmless. Sufficient information was from personal observations or reliable sources,2 and it is not likely the verdict would have differed without the improper matter. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].)
Similarly, it was error to allow the testimony on such ultimate issues as Gamez’s gang membership and whether Southside is a criminal street gang. *980Once the jury had the benefit of the officers’ expertise on how such gangs operate, their symbols, and other topics, the jurors were as able as the officers to decide the ultimate issues. (See People v. Brown (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 820, 829 [172 Cal.Rptr. 221].) But this error was also harmless because it is not probable it affected the verdict.
I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that circumstantial evidence was not a large part of the prosecution case. Although the identification of Gamez was direct evidence, much of the admissible evidence showing his gang membership, the criminal street gang status of Southside, and his intent in doing the acts was circumstantial. The jury should have been instructed on circumstantial evidence. However, it is not reasonably likely the verdict would have differed had instructions been given.
II*

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976(b), part II of the concurring opinion is not published.

For this reason, I also would find the evidence sufficient to show Southside was a criminal street gang.

See footnote 1, ante, page 979.