CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Forensic Issues
.........Criminal
............Gang Sociology-Psychology
24 Cards On This Topic:

Gang expert did not invade jury's province as gang tactics are sufficiently beyond common experience—E had extensive experience with street gangs as a police O and military tactics as a military O.

As the DA did not introduce enough evidence to show a connection among the subsets it alleged comprised a criminal street gang, D was not eligible for a sentence enhancement under the STEP Act.

Gang expert properly testified the most common excuse given by reluctant Ws at the scene of a gang crime in a restaurant is that they did not see anything because they were in the bathroom.

D did not violate PC 186.22(a) where he was the sole perpetrator of an attempted robbery—statute meant to punish active participants for commission of criminal acts done ••collectively•• with gang members.

An offense D committed on a separate occasion qualifies as a predicate offense to establish a "pattern of criminal gang activity" under STEP Act; no abuse of EC 352 discretion in admitting such evidence here.

E may not use his chart/exhibit regarding "gang member depression," for which no foundation laid, but may be questioned as to his observations and studies of gang member depression.

In answering DA hypos about possible reasons gang member was in hostile territory with gun, experts did not render impermissible opinion as to D's actual intent, but properly testified as to his motivations for his actions.

Expert may testify that Ws, even from rival gangs, are often reluctant to I.D. gang members out of fear—it explains to lay jurors seemingly counterintuitive conduct even as it supports another W's credibility.

Combined aggravated assault by D and aiding and abetting by fellow gang member was single offense and did not establish pattern of criminal gang activity.

DA proved requisite pattern of criminal gang activity required under STEP Act; predicate offenses need not be gang related.

Following dicta in Rodriguez, PC 186.22(b)(1) gang enhancements may be applied to lone actor; expert testimony in response to hypos, however, was insufficient to prove enhancements.

Harmless error to find question to E speculative where it did not concern Ds' knowledge/intent in riding together, but requested an opinion as to whether in gang culture when a gang member rides with other members he knows what will happen.

Testimony of experienced gang expert and the robbery D committed with another King Kobra was sufficient evidence to establish gang's primary activities and pattern of criminal activity.

PC 186.22(b)(1)’s specific intent "to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members," does not require intent to further criminal conduct beyond the charged crime.

Court declines to follow 9th Cir. where, by its plain language, PC 186.22(b) requires showing of specific intent to promote, further, or assist in ••any•• criminal conduct by gang members, rather than ••other•• criminal conduct."

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony of DA's gang expert re Mexican Mafia in attempted killing of rival gang member in jail—D's intent was not subject of expert's testimony.

Finding on gang allegation stricken where evidence didn't establish that gang's primary activities were commission of PC 186.22 enumerated crimes; no expert testimony such as in Gardeley elicited here.

Expert gang testimony properly admitted as relevant to motive and intent and to help jury understand discrepancies between witnesses’ statements to police and their trial testimony.

PC 654 did not bar punishment for gang crime and robbery where objectives, though pursued at same time, were independent; substantial evidence showed M was an active participant in criminal street gang.

Where gang expert opined that certain behavior, by a known gang member, was likely done for certain gang-related purposes. . . . [I]t was not error to admit such testimony.

Either prior conduct or acts committed at time of charged offenses can be used to establish "primary activities" element of gang enhancement offense.

Street gang expert's testimony about gang graffiti, territoriality and disrespect sufficiently beyond common experience so as to require expert interpretation.

Investigators properly permitted to express opinions on customs and practices of prison gang.

Expert in street gangs may rely, in part, upon inadmissible hearsay obtained while talking with gang members; right of confrontation not violated; limits on testimony.