California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. McClane, E055088 (Cal. App. 2015):
In People v. Morales (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1176, the gang expert testified, in response to a hypothetical question that incorporated "the critical facts" of the case, that the crimes had been committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a gang because they involved three gang members acting in association with each other. (Id. at p. 1197.) He went on to say that the gang provided a ready-made manpower pool and one member chose to commit the crimes in association with other members because he could count on their loyalty. (Ibid.) Additionally, the presence of multiple gang members increased the intimidation factor. (Ibid.) Such crimes benefitted the perpetrators within the gang and benefitted the gang with notoriety amongst rival gangs and in the community. (Ibid.) Rejecting the defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement findings, this court held, "[I]t is conceivable that several gang members could commit a crime together, yet be on a frolic and detour unrelated to the gang. Here, however, there was no evidence of this. Thus, the jury could reasonably infer the requisite association from the very fact that defendant committed the charged crimes in association with fellow gang members. [] If defendant is arguing that there was insufficient evidence of the specific intent element[, i.e., that
Page 39
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.