What is the test of relevance and abuse of discretion in the context of evidence in a criminal case where a kite containing information about a gang member was found on the person?

"In reviewing the ruling of the trial court, we reiterate the well-established principle that 'the admissibility of this evidence has two components: (1) whether the challenged evidence satisfied the "relevancy" requirement set forth in Evidence Code Section 210, and (2) if the evidence was relevant, whether the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code Section 352 in finding that the probative value of the [evidence] was not substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would create a substantial danger of undue prejudice.' [Citation.]" (People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 946, 972.) We review the trial court's rulings on relevance and the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1195.)

Page 14

"The test of relevancy is whether the evidence tends, logically, naturally, or by reasonable inference to establish a material fact, not whether it conclusively proves it." (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 376.) One of the ways Hispanic gang members from Southern California identify themselves to other inmates is by putting their information on a kite and reporting to the shot-caller for that housing location. The "roll call" kite was found on appellant's person. The fact that appellant's name was not listed on the roll call was indicative of his status as either a "shot-caller" or the shot-caller's right hand man. The kite was evidence of appellant's position in the gang hierarchy within the prison system.