State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10 - URE 404 and Gang-Related Character Evidence.

Mr. Gonzalez appealed his murder conviction mostly with the argument that evidence of his gang affiliation was cumulative and unfairly prejudicial.


State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10

Mr. Gonzalez appealed his murder by arguing that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for directed verdict on the murder and obstruction-of-justice charges, (2) permitting the State to present allegedly cumulative and unfairly prejudicial gang-related evidence, and (3) dismissing as untimely his constitutional challenge to the gang-enhancement statute.

Mr. Gonzalez tried to bifurcate the trial, so his gang involvement would not be admitted until he was convicted. Gang involvement enhances the charges, and would increase the sentence. 

First, the Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Gonzalez was not acting in self-defense. When looking at the issue of aggression, evidence of a “defendant’s verbal and physical acts at the scene of the homicide [is] sufficient” to show that the defendant was the aggressor. State v. Starks, 627 P.2d 88, 91 (Utah 1981). As an aggressor, he was not able to claim self-defense. The court determined the expert testimony and the evidence of Mr. Gonzalez’s actions indicate that he was the aggressor.

Second, the court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the gang-related evidence during the guilt phase of the trial. Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence provides an exception to the general rule of admissibility by permitting courts to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice . . . or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has “an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis.” State v. Maurer, 770 P.2d 981, 984 (Utah 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This evidence is also allowed because “where gang-related evidence is prejudicial, it is not necessarily unfairly prejudicial and therefore should be admitted where it has high probative value. See United States v. Santiago, 643 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir. 2011). There may be an issue under Utah R. Evid. 404(a)(1), (b)(1), for using gang-related evidence as character evidence, which is prohibited.

            But mere evidence of gang affiliation that does not relate to prior bad acts does not violate rule 404’s prohibition against character evidence. See United States v. Hodges, 315 F.3d 794, 801 (7th Cir. 2003). Moreover, gang-related character or bad-acts evidence will not violate rule 404 if it is admitted for a reason other than to show conformity with that character trait on a particular occasion.

            The court concluded saying that “the gang-related evidence was highly relevant to the State’s theories of motive and intent and to Mr. Gonzalez’s claim of self-defense. The evidence of Mr. Gonzalez’s gang-related tattoos and clothing was relevant to establishing his loyalty to his gang and his willingness to publicly display his gang membership. And evidence of his gang loyalty suggested that, as a committed member of Dog Town, Mr. Gonzalez was highly motivated to retaliate against an insult to his gang.

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Gonzalez150127.pdf