supports joinder. 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1028; (1997) 15 Cal.4th Ramirez, supra, People v. Marshall 1, 28. V. TATTOO EVIDENCE The People will seek to introduce evidence of the gang tattoos by way of booking defendant’s photographs and in-court demonstrations. The presentation of tattoo evidence does not infringe upon any Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination or any other constitutional rights. People v. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1346, 1350-51; (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 913, 936. Perez People v. Breckenridge Accordingly, a prosecution request to have defendant display his tattoo is proper. See, e.g., People v. (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 842. Therefore, because the evidence of tattoos is Ambriz defendant’s extremely relevant to gang membership, it should be admitted. VI. EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 Evidence concerning the association with the gang, admissions of gang defendant’s membership, monikers, tattoos and appearance, as well as general testimony about the FTB criminal street gang and its activities, should be admitted over any Evidence Code 352 objection. This is because any prejudice that such evidence may cause naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. In (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638, the California Supreme Court, in approving People v. Karis the admission of highly inflammatory rape evidence, stated the following: prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is “The designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. evidence which tends to prove guilt is ‘[All] prejudicial or damaging to the case. The stronger the evidence, the more it defendant’s is The referred to in Evidence Code Section 352 applies to “prejudicial.” “prejudice” evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an
supports joinder. Ramirez, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1028; People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 28. V. TATTOO EVIDENCE The People will seek to introduce evidence of the defendant’s gang tattoos by way of booking photographs and in-court demonstrations. The presentation of tattoo evidence does not infringe upon any Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination or any other constitutional rights. People v. Perez (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1346, 1350-51; People v. Breckenridge (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 913, 936. Accordingly, a prosecution request to have defendant display his tattoo is proper. See, e.g., People v. Ambriz (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 842. Therefore, because the evidence of defendant’s tattoos is extremely relevant to gang membership, it should be admitted. VI. EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 Evidence concerning the defendant’s association with the gang, admissions of gang membership, monikers, tattoos and appearance, as well as general testimony about the FTB criminal street gang and its activities, should be admitted over any Evidence Code 352 objection. This is because any prejudice that such evidence may cause naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. In People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638, the California Supreme Court, in approving the admission of highly inflammatory rape evidence, stated the following: “The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. ‘[All] evidence which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial or damaging to the defendant’s case. The stronger the evidence, the more it is “prejudicial.” The “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code Section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an
GraffitiProsecution%20Manual10-31-09.docx