supports joinder. Ramirez, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1028; People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 28. V. TATTOO EVIDENCE The People will seek to introduce evidence of the defendant’s gang tattoos by way of booking photographs and in-court demonstrations. The presentation of tattoo evidence does not infringe upon any Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination or any other constitutional rights. People v. Perez (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1346, 1350-51; People v. Breckenridge (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 913, 936. Accordingly, a prosecution request to have defendant display his tattoo is proper. See, e.g., People v. Ambriz (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 842. Therefore, because the evidence of defendant’s tattoos is extremely relevant to gang membership, it should be admitted. VI. EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 Evidence concerning the defendant’s association with the gang, admissions of gang membership, monikers, tattoos and appearance, as well as general testimony about the FTB criminal street gang and its activities, should be admitted over any Evidence Code 352 objection. This is because any prejudice that such evidence may cause naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. In People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638, the California Supreme Court, in approving the admission of highly inflammatory rape evidence, stated the following: “The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. ‘[All] evidence which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial or damaging to the defendant’s case. The stronger the evidence, the more it is “prejudicial.” The “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code Section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an
At least one overt act must be pleaded and proven to the jury. People v Von Villas, (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 175 Cert. Denied [overruled] Crime complete with first overt act. People v Von Villas, (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 175 Cert. Denied [overruled] Uncharged overt acts may be proven to the jury. P.C. §182(b) People v. Jones, (1964) 228 Cal.2 74 Overt acts need not be criminal acts. CALJIC 6.10 CALCRIM 415 People v Causey, (1963) 220 Cal. App. 2d 641, 653 People v Sconce, (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 693 The jury does not have to unanimously agree on which overt acts were committed. People v Godinez, (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1363 People v Lopez, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 897 People v Von Villas, (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 175 Cert. Denied [overruled] Mere association does not prove guilt. CALJIC 6.10 CALCRIM 415 An act which furthered another's illegal purpose is not, in itself, sufficient to prove that the person doing the act was a member of a conspiracy. People v Austin, (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1596 [overruled on other grounds] III. LIABILITY A. Anyone who aids and abets someone who commits or attempts to commit a crime is not only guilty of that crime or attempt but also guilty of any other crime committed by a principal which is the natural and probable consequence of the crime originally aided and abetted. CALJIC 3.02 CALCRIM 402, 403 People v Superior Court, (Quinteros) (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 12 CALJIC 6.15 dealing with non-liability for the independent acts of co-conspirators does not apply to those prosecuted solely on an aiding and abetting theory. This instruction tends to limit the liability of conspirators. CALJIC 6.15 People v Brigham, (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1039 People v Anderson, (1991) 223 C.A.3 1646
**Please note that if the defendant and the minor are both charged with the same crime (i.e. graffiti/vandalism), they are considered accomplices, and any testimony they make against each other, must be corroborated. (P.C. §1111) APPENDIX I Los Angeles Administrative Code – Graffiti Technology Fund CHAPTER 152 GRAFFITI TECHNOLOGY AND RECOVERY FUND Sec. 5.552. Necessity of the Fund. The City's ability to photograph graffiti, retain photographs of graffiti, and identify the graffiti vandals is paramount in the City's effort to successfully implement the cost recovery procedures outlined in Chapter IV, Article 14 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. This fund is established to assist in providing the necessary technology to promptly identify, intervene and hold accountable graffiti vandals. Sec. 5.553. Purpose of the Fund. The purpose of the Graffiti Technology and Recovery Fund (Fund) is to establish a repository for deposit of monies derived from collection of restitution, both criminal and civil, as well as civil penalty fines, administrative fees and law enforcement investigative costs from graffiti offenders, and other sources, which are to be used for financing graffiti technology and