What is the effect of admitting evidence that an appellant possessed a gun with intent to promote, further or assist gang members' criminal conduct?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Escobarcarrasco, H035991 (Cal. App. 2011):
Nevertheless, we conclude that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless. (See People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 22 [error in admitting Evid. Code, 1101 evidence tested by People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, harmless error standard].) Contrary to appellant's earlier claim, the evidence that he possessed the gun on April 6, 2009, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist gang members' criminal conduct, as outlined ante, was compelling. Therefore, it is not reasonably probable a result more favorable to appellant would have been reached in the absence of the 1101 evidence; to put it another way reversal is required only if there is a reasonable probability the error affected the verdict adversely to appellant. We are convinced that it did not.
The judgment is affirmed.
7 It does not appear that the March 31 incident was gang related.
Page 15
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
