Crips and Bloods: An Evidentiary Analysis
On August 9, 2010, in the case of State v. Goodman, the Appellate Division held that evidence of a defendant’s membership in a street gang could properly be admitted at trial in some circumstances, even though it can be highly prejudicial to the defendant. In this case, evidence of defendant’s membership in the “Crips” street gang was admissible because it was relevant to the defendant’s motive for killing the victim.
Defendant Quran Goodman was convicted for the murder of Rashon Bryant in violation of N.J.S. 2C:11-3(a); third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun in violation of N.J.S. 2C:39-5(b); and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose in violation of N.J.S. 2C:39-4(a). Defendant Goodman had a longstanding friendship with victim Bryant prior to the events that gave rise to this case. In 2000, while defendant Goodman was a member of the “Crips” gang, victim Bryant was not a member of any gang. However, Bryant was incarcerated in 2000, and while in prison, became a member of the “Bloods” street gang. The “Crips” and “Bloods” are rival street gangs with a history of violence.
After Bryant was release from prison, he wanted to see defendant Goodman on a street corner in Irvington where the two had hung out prior to Bryant’s incarceration. According to testimony at trial, during the meeting at the corner, defendant Goodman shot and killed Bryant. At trial, defendant sought to exclude any evidence of his membership of a street gang, arguing that it was not relevant and that it was unduly prejudicial; however, the trial judge allowed the evidence because it was relevant to the issue of defendant’s motive for shooting the victim.
Under the Rules of Evidence, only relevant evidence should be admitted at trial. Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence in the action. In this case, the Appellate Division held that the evidence of the defendant’s and the victim’s gang membership was relevant because it explained why defendant would shoot someone with whom he was friends for a long time.
Under some circumstances, even relevant evidence is excluded at trial because of its tendency to inflame or confuse the jury. For example, under evidence rule 404(b), evidence of past crimes is generally excluded because it is highly prejudicial and has a great tendency to inflame the jury. In other words, at trial, the jury should focus on whether the defendant committed the particular crime he is now charged with and should not be tempted to punish the defendant for previous crimes.
In this case, the State argued that evidence rule 404(b) was not applicable because membership in a street gang is not a crime. However, the Court concluded that even though membership in a street gang is not a crime, evidence rule 404(b) still applies because membership in a street gang is at least very suggestive of criminal activity. In other words, the average juror is likely to think that a gang member has engaged in criminal activity.
Under evidence rule 404(b), evidence of a prior crime or bad act cannot be admitted, except to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue of dispute. The New Jersey Supreme Court has outlined four factors, called “Cofield factors” used to determine whether evidence of prior crimes or bad acts should be admitted: (1) the evidence of other crimes must be admissible as relevant to a material issue; (2) it must be similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged; (3) the evidence of prior crimes must be clear and convincing; and (4) the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice.
In the present case, with respect to the first factor, the Court concluded that the evidence was admissible as relevant because it was relevant to the issue of defendant’s motive. While the second factor did not apply in this case, prior case law has held that the second factor does not need to be universally found in order for the evidence to be admissible. Regarding the third factor, there was enough testimony regarding gang membership for the trial judge to conclude by clear and convincing evidence that defendant and the victim were gang members. With respect to the fourth factor, the evidence of gang membership was so important to proving why defendant would shoot and kill a person with whom he had been friends for a long time, that its probative value outweighed the prejudice inherent in the jury learning that defendant was a gang member. The Court concluded that there was no other evidence that could have proven why defendant would shoot and kill his former friend.
This case is illustrative of the various evidentiary issues that arise in a criminal case. It is important for a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer to keep these issues in mind and to formulate a strategy with regard to various issues of evidence from the very beginning of a case. Anyone charged with a crime in New Jersey, from a simple assault or drug possession charge to a murder charge should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for assistance and representation.
