State v. Cristobal
2012 UT App 181
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cristobal was convicted of aggravated assault with an in concert enhancement (second degree felony) and riot (third degree felony).
- The case involves gang evidence from PVL and a challenge to the territory-related testimony under Rule 403.
- Cristobal testified he was a former PVL member; the companion case State v. High is related and released concurrently.
- The State admitted gang-activity evidence, including PVL’s territorial claim, to explain motive and possible identity or conduct.
- Cristobal argues the territory testimony was substantially more prejudicial than probative and should have been excluded.
- The trial court admitted the territory evidence, and the appellate court analyzes whether that admission was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether territory testimony was admissible under Rule 403 | Cristobal | Cristobal | Territory testimony properly admitted; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether PVL territory evidence meaningfully supports motive/identity without causing unfair prejudice | State | Cristobal | Evidence probative and not unfairly prejudicial given context and jury awareness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. High, 2012 UT App 180 (Utah Court of Appeals 2012) (supports admissibility of gang-evidence and its relation to motive and identity)
- State v. Downs, 2008 UT App 247 (Utah Court of Appeals 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings under Rule 403)
- State v. Castillo, 2007 UT App 324 (Utah Court of Appeals 2007) (framework for Rule 403 balancing and admission of relevant evidence)
- State v. Kooyman, 2005 UT App 222 (Utah Court of Appeals 2005) (presumes admission of relevant evidence unless unusual propensity to unfair prejudice)
- People v. Hernandez, 94 P.3d 1080 (Cal. 2004) (gang territory evidence can be relevant to motive and other guilt-related issues)