Is the evidence sufficient to prove a shooting was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang?

The evidence was also sufficient to prove the shooting was committed with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. "Expert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was 'committed for the benefit of ... a [ ] criminal street gang' within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1)." (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 63.) The prosecution's expert witness in this case opined, with an adequate factual foundation, that the shooting was committed for the benefit of the gang because it was done in retaliation for the victim's stated intention to step away from the gang, and it furthered the gang's reputation for intimidation and violence. Even without the expert's conclusion about the motivation for the act of violence, the jury could have reasonably inferred from the available evidence that the victim was shot in retaliation for his recent public expressions that he wanted to step back from the gang.

People v. Ramirez (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 800, cited by defendant in his reply brief, is distinguishable. In that case the court concluded that evidence of one gang member shooting another, without more, was not an adequate basis for an expert's

Page 12

opinion that the shooting was for the benefit of the gang. (Id. at p. 819.) In contrast, the expert's opinion here was that the shooting benefited the gang by serving as punishment for attempting to leave the gang and as a warning to others not to try to do the same. This would serve to increase gang leaders' control over members. The jury here was presented with sufficient evidence from which to find an intent to benefit the gang, even though other evidence may have pointed to the contrary conclusion that the shooting was motivated by a personal dispute between the victim and the shooter. Our task in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is not to reweigh the evidence. We must presume that the jury rejected the theory of a purely personal dispute in favor of the gang-related theory that supports the judgment. (People v. Ryan (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1313 [" ' " 'If the circumstances reasonably justify the trial court's findings, reversal is not warranted merely because the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding.' " ' "].) On this record a rational trier of fact could conclude that the necessary elements for the charged gang enhancements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment is affirmed.

Page 13

/s/_________
Grover, J.