 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Rizo4/24/2002
dence concerning Krazy Crowd was admissible to show motive and identity. It did not allow the prosecution to argue that Krazy Crowd was a criminal street gang.
Defendants contend the evidence was not relevant and, if relevant, was too prejudicial to be admissible under Evidence Code section 352. They contend the evidence was quasi-gang evidence and should be evaluated as such. Even accepting that characterization, we find no error.
"The admission of gang evidence over an Evidence Code section 352 objection will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court's decision exceeds the bounds of reason." (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1369.) "Evidence of gang activity and affiliation is admissible where it is relevant to issues of motive and intent [citations], and, while admissible evidence often carries with it a certain amount of prejudice, Evidence Code section 352 is designed for situations in which evidence of little evidentiary impact evokes an emotional bias. [Citation .]" (Ibid.; accord, People v. Funes (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1518.) " here evidence of gang activity or membership is important to the motive, it can be introduced even if prejudicial." (People v. Martin (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 76, 81; accord, People v. Beyea ( 1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 176, 194-195.)
Jesus made a point of telling Galvan, "This is Krazy Crowd" at the same time Ivan was threatening to kill him. Other members of groups which included various defendants yelled "Krazy Crowd" while fighting with Galvan at the wedding, and again outside the night club as more threats were made to kill him. Thus, the term "Krazy Crowd" was consistently invoked in defendants' presence in connection with violence or threats of violence against Galvan. It was a reasonable inference that defendants' apparent connection with Krazy Crowd formed at least a part of their long-standing animosity toward Galvan and their motive to harm or kill him. Particularly given the lack of any evidence or any argument by the prosecution that Krazy Crowd was a criminal street gang, the evidence was not so prejudicial as to be inadmissible.
C. Admission of Defendants' Preoffense Statements Under Coconspirator Exception
Defendants contend the court improperly admitted, under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1223), prosecution witnesses' testimony as to Ivan's statements in the night club that he was going to kill Galvan, and Jesus's statement at that time, "This is Krazy Crowd." Defendants assert the admission of this testimony was improper because the prosecutor failed to prove a conspiracy.
The court's ruling must be upheld if the testimony was admissible under any hearsay exception. (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 635.) The evidence of Ivan's and Jesus's statements in the club was admissible on at least two bases other than the coconspirator exception.
First, to at least some extent the evidence was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the statements. Jesus's statement, "This is Krazy Crowd," clearly was relevant not only for its truth - to show Jesus was affiliated with Krazy Crowd - but also to show Jesus's animosity toward Galvan. It was apparent that Jesus's purpose in mentioning Krazy Crowd was to challenge Galvan.
Ivan's statement that he was going to kill Galvan presents a closer question but also could have been admitted not for its truth - i.e., not to show that in fact Ivan was going to kill Galvan - but to show his animosity toward Galvan regardless of whether he was actually going to kill him. Offered for that purpose, Ivan's statement was circumstantial evidence of his st
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|