reliability of otherwise inadmissible police reports as a basis for the opinion are not issues for expert’s the court but rather matters for cross examination. The only restriction on this type of testimony Ibid. is that the opinion must be based on material of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the expert’s particular field in forming their opinions. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 918-919; Cal. Evid. People v. Montiel Code §801(b). The recent case of (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1202 reaffirmed the central People v. Thomas principles of and held that expert testimony regarding hearsay documents (including police Gardeley reports where the defendant was listed as the suspect, an incident report indicating that the defendant was present at a knife fight, and casual, undocumented conversations with other members of the gang and rival gangs) did not offend the Confrontation defendant’s Confrontation Clause. “[T]he not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of Clause ‘does the matter (quoting (2004) 541 U.S. 36). Ibid. Crawford v. Washington asserted.’” IV. CROSS ADMISSIBILITY OF GANG EVIDENCE The California Supreme Court has recognized that evidence of gang membership is often relevant to, and admissible regarding, the charged offense. (2004) 33 Cal.4th People v. Hernandez 1040, 1049. of the gang affiliation--including evidence of the territory, “Evidence defendant’s gang’s membership, signs, symbols, beliefs and practices, criminal enterprises, rivalries, and the like--can help prove identity, motive, modus operandi, specific intent, means of applying force or fear, or other issues pertinent to guilt of the charged Ibid. crime.” In line with the appellate court, in (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th Hernandez, People v. Samaniego 1148, 1168, has held that related to gang membership is not insulated from the general rule “[e]vidence that all relevant evidence is admissible if it is relevant to a material issue in the case other than character, is not more prejudicial than probative, and is not evidence is relevant cumulative.” “Gang and admissible when the very reason for the underlying crime, that is the motive, is gang related.”
reliability of otherwise inadmissible police reports as a basis for the expert’s opinion are not issues for the court but rather matters for cross examination. Ibid. The only restriction on this type of testimony is that the expert’s opinion must be based on material of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming their opinions. People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 918-919; Cal. Evid. Code §801(b). The recent case of People v. Thomas (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1202 reaffirmed the central principles of Gardeley and held that expert testimony regarding hearsay documents (including police reports where the defendant was listed as the suspect, an incident report indicating that the defendant was present at a knife fight, and casual, undocumented conversations with other members of the defendant’s gang and rival gangs) did not offend the Confrontation Clause. “[T]he Confrontation Clause ‘does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.’” Ibid. (quoting Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36). IV. CROSS ADMISSIBILITY OF GANG EVIDENCE The California Supreme Court has recognized that evidence of gang membership is often relevant to, and admissible regarding, the charged offense. People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1049. “Evidence of the defendant’s gang affiliation--including evidence of the gang’s territory, membership, signs, symbols, beliefs and practices, criminal enterprises, rivalries, and the like--can help prove identity, motive, modus operandi, specific intent, means of applying force or fear, or other issues pertinent to guilt of the charged crime.” Ibid. In line with Hernandez, the appellate court, in People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1168, has held that “[e]vidence related to gang membership is not insulated from the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible if it is relevant to a material issue in the case other than character, is not more prejudicial than probative, and is not cumulative.” “Gang evidence is relevant and admissible when the very reason for the underlying crime, that is the motive, is gang related.”