People v. Ramirez & Villarreal
244 Cal. App. 4th 800
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2011 Jerry Ramirez shot Andy Mendoza during a neighborhood dispute; Catherine Villarreal allegedly struck Natalie Mendoza with a baseball bat. Both were charged with multiple offenses including attempted murder (Ramirez), assault with a deadly weapon (Villarreal), gang participation (Pen. Code §186.22(a)), and gang enhancements (§186.22(b)(1)).
- At the preliminary hearing, a sheriff’s gang expert (Deputy Jackson) testified Ramirez had gang-significant tattoos and a Facebook photo in blue; he opined Ramirez was a Sureño member and Villarreal an associate, and that the offenses benefited the Sureños.
- The magistrate held defendants to answer on the gang charges/enhancements. Ramirez moved under Penal Code §995 to set aside the information for lack of probable cause; Villarreal joined. The trial court denied the §995 motion.
- At trial the prosecution introduced extensive gang evidence (expert testimony repeating and expanding on the preliminary hearing testimony). The jury convicted Ramirez of attempted murder and Villarreal of assault; the jury acquitted both on active participation and rejected the gang enhancements.
- The appellate court reviewed the preliminary hearing record de novo and concluded the preliminary evidence was insufficient to support (a) that the Sureños constituted a single criminal street gang under §186.22(f), (b) the §186.22(a) active participation charges, and (c) the §186.22(b)(1) gang enhancement allegations.
- The court held the denial of the §995 motion prejudiced defendants because the admission of inflammatory, irrelevant gang evidence at trial likely affected the jury’s assessment of credibility; the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial on the underlying offenses and firearm/GBI enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preliminary hearing evidence established the Sureños as a single "criminal street gang" under §186.22(f) | Jackson’s testimony that various subsets align with the Sureños and description of Sureño symbols and activities sufficed | Evidence only showed named subsets (Eastside Rivas, Eastside Victoria) with no proof they are organizationally connected to one another or to a larger Sureño group | Reversed — evidence insufficient; prosecutor failed to show associational/organizational connection among subsets required by Prunty |
| Whether evidence supported §186.22(a) active participation charges (more than nominal/passive involvement) | Expert opinion tying Ramirez’s tattoos and photo to Sureños and Villarreal’s association via relationship and a moniker sufficed for probable cause | Tattoos, a photo, and a personal relationship do not prove active, non-nominal gang membership or knowledge of gang criminal activity | Reversed — insufficient to infer active participation, knowledge of gang activity, or concerted felony conduct with other gang members |
| Whether evidence supported §186.22(b)(1) gang enhancement (crime committed for gang benefit and specific intent) | Expert opinion that violent acts generally bolster gang reputation and thus benefited the Sureños; membership in gang(s) established | Expert’s general reputation opinion was conclusory and unsupported by facts tying this incident to gang objectives or showing concerted gang criminality/specific intent | Reversed — expert opinion was conclusory and evidence insufficient on both gang-related and specific intent prongs |
| Whether denial of §995 and admission of gang evidence was prejudicial at trial | Gang evidence was relevant to gang allegations and to prove motive/intent; magistrate’s finding justified admissibility | Admission of inflammatory, irrelevant gang evidence likely tainted jury’s credibility determinations and deprived defendants of fair trial | Reversed and remanded — erroneous denial of §995 led to admission of irrelevant prejudicial gang evidence; reasonable probability of more favorable outcome without it |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (explains need to show associational/organizational connection among subsets to prove a single criminal street gang)
- People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (defines elements of §186.22(a) active participation offense)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (expert opinion can support inference crime benefitted a gang by enhancing reputation)
- People v. Gardely, 14 Cal.4th 605 (expert opinion inadmissible without support; opinion only as good as facts underlying it)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (due process limits on admission of prejudicial evidence)
- People v. Crittenden, 9 Cal.4th 83 (standard for assessing prejudice from evidentiary error)
- People v. Uhlemann, 9 Cal.3d 662 (standard for magistrate’s reasonable and probable cause at preliminary hearing)
- People v. Bautista, 223 Cal.App.4th 1096 (review principles following denial of §995 motion)