0
0
Goodman, whose street name was “Blak,” was a member of the Crips gang. Prior to the events that gave rise to this case, he and Bryant had a longstanding friendship. Goodman regularly spent time at the corner located at the intersection of Ellis Avenue and Hopkins Place in Irvington. And, at various times, Bryant sold drugs at the same corner.
Goodman and other Crips members attempted without success to convince Bryant to become a Crip. In 2000, when Bryant was sentenced to state prison, he was not a member of any gang.
However, according to Tauheedah Carney, his girlfriend from 1999 until his death in 2004, Bryant became a member of the Bloods gang while incarcerated. Carney described the Crips and the Bloods as rival gangs, each of which used certain colors and language as gang symbols.
The defendant in this case had expressed distress and/or anger over the fact that the victim had become a member of the Bloods.
The State argues that gang membership should not be considered under N.J.R.E. 404(b) at all, and that analysis under N.J.R.E. 401 as to relevance and N.J.R.E. 403(a) as to undue prejudice is adequate.
The State cites three reasons for its argument:
(1) “gang membership is not a crime,” United States v. Acosta, 110 F. Supp. 2d 918, 931 (E.D. Wis. 2000) (“The First Amendment protects individuals’ right of free association. Gang membership is not a crime.”), see also N.J.S.A. 2C:33-29;
(2) gang membership is not proof of a crime committed by an individual member, State v. Johnson, 848 A.2d 526, 533 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (“We conclude that the testimony regarding the defendant’s gang affiliation did not constitute evidence of the defendant’s prior misconduct because it did not show any bad act or criminal conduct on his part.”);
(3) analysis under 404(b) could lead to unduly restrictive results because it requires “clear and convincing evidence.” (See State v. Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 338 – “The evidence of the other crime must be clear and convincing.”).
Although evidence of membership in a street gang is not, as the State argues, evidence of actual criminal activity, it is at the very least strongly suggestive of such activity. As the district judge noted in one of the cases cited by the State, Acosta, supra, 110 F. Supp. 2d at 931, “the mere fact, or even allegation, of gang membership carries a strong taint of criminality.”
While acknowledging that our Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the issue, the State points to State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 569-71 (2005), in which the Court outlined the case law in other jurisdictions that does allow such testimony. In Torres, the Court held that evidence about a defendant’s gang involvement was admissible because it was “relevant to show the connection between defendant’s actions as the leader of the gang and the actions of the other gang members who actually committed the murder.”
With respect to gang membership, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a court “may not convict an individual merely for belonging to an organization that advocates illegal activity.” (United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 48, 105 S. Ct. 465, 476, 83 L. Ed. 2d 450, 455 (1984)).
State of New Jersey v. Quran Goodman (2010). Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Decided: August 09, 2010
Average Rating