Gangs One

State v. Cruz-Ramirez, Minn.S.Ct., 8/27/2009.  A jury found Mr. Cruz-Ramirez guilty of six counts of murder for the death of Heli Leon; and found him guilty of a total of twelve counts of attempted murder for the injuries of three others.  The trial court pronounced a life sentence on the completed murder and three consecutive sentences of 186 months each on the attempted murder convictions. 

Some of the counts were “benefit of a gang” counts, so the state wanted to present gang expert testimony.  This expert described the ten criteria by which gang members are identified; described several characteristics of the gangs at play in this prosecution; and described the criminal activities of those gangs.  This expert did not give an opinion whether Mr. Cruz-Ramirez was a gang member, or whether the crimes for which he was on trial were committed for the benefit of a gang.  The defense objected to all this evidence.

The appellate court reviewed the bidding for admission of gang expert testimony:

[W]e have emphasized that expert testimony on gang activity is often “neither helpful nor necessary and can be highly prejudicial, due to the potential for experts to unduly influence the jury.” State v. Jackson, 714 N.W.2d 681, 691 (Minn. 2006). When feasible, we recommend that testimony from witnesses with first-hand knowledge be used to prove the “for the benefit of the gang” element, and we advise against the use of expert testimony to prove the gang membership of the specific defendant. Mahkuk, 736 N.W.2d at 686. In summary, gang expert testimony must “add precision or depth to the jury‟s ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within its experience” to be admissible. State v. DeShay, 669 N.W.2d 878, 888 (Minn. 2003).

The appellate court concluded that the state’s expert played by the rules.  The expert’s descriptions were based on his own knowledge and he did not opine whether the charges being tried were committed for the benefit of a gang.

On a separate instructional issue, the appellate court found error in the court’s instruction for the attempt charges.  However, as there was no defense objection, Mr. Cruz-Ramirez had to establish plain error.  In failing to find plain error the appellate court relied, in part, on three hours that the parties and the court worked on the instructions.