## Facts

- Rochelle Lonel Gardeley and Tommie James Thompson were members of the “Family Crip” gang in San Jose, California.
- At about 2 a.m. in August 1992, Edward Bruno stopped to urinate in an area claimed by the gang.
- Defendants approached Bruno, asked “where he was from,” and stated “This is Family Crip neighborhood.”
- Defendants and a third person attacked Bruno by hitting and kicking him and stole his wristwatch, gold chain, and about $30.
- Police soon stopped a car for traffic violations, arrested defendants, and recovered Bruno’s property.
- Defendants were tried for multiple offenses, including robbery and assault, and the prosecution sought gang enhancements under Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1).
- The prosecution presented a police detective as a gang expert who testified about the gang’s territory, symbols, rivalries, primary activities, and prior crimes by members, relying on his experience, police reports, and conversations with other officers.
- The expert answered a hypothetical tracking the case facts and opined the crimes were gang-related and benefited the gang.

## Issues

1. Whether the predicate offenses used to prove a “pattern of criminal gang activity” under Penal Code § 186.22(e) must themselves be shown to be “gang related.”
2. Whether a gang expert may base opinions on hearsay and other material not independently admitted, if reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
3. Whether expert testimony responding to a case-based hypothetical may support findings that (a) the group is a “criminal street gang” and (b) the charged crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with that gang under § 186.22(b)(1).

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, including the § 186.22(b)(1) gang enhancements.
- Predicate offenses establishing a “pattern of criminal gang activity” need not be independently proven “gang related”; it is enough that they are qualifying offenses listed in § 186.22(e) committed or attempted by gang members within the statutory time limits.
- Under Evidence Code § 801(b), an expert may rely on inadmissible matter, including hearsay, if it is the type of information reasonably relied upon by experts in the field; the gang expert’s reliance on police reports, conversations with other officers, and investigative experience was permitted.
- A properly framed hypothetical based on facts supported by evidence may be used to obtain expert opinion on whether an offense is gang-related and whether it benefits the gang.
- The expert testimony and case evidence provided substantial support for findings that the Family Crip gang met the statutory definition of a “criminal street gang” and that defendants’ crimes were committed to benefit the gang.

## Legal Principles

- For Penal Code § 186.22(e), a “pattern of criminal gang activity” requires two or more enumerated predicate offenses committed or attempted by gang members within the statutory period; the statute does not add a requirement that each predicate offense be proven to have a gang-related purpose.
- Evidence Code § 801(b) allows expert opinions based on matter (including hearsay) not admitted for its truth, if experts in the field reasonably rely on such matter in forming opinions.
- Gang experts may testify about gang identity, symbols, territory, rivalries, primary activities, and predicate offenses, and may form opinions from police reports, interofficer information, and investigations, when that reliance is reasonable in the field.
- Experts may answer hypothetical questions that assume case-specific facts supported by evidence; such testimony may assist the jury in assessing gang motivation and benefit under § 186.22(b)(1).

## Conclusion

The court held that § 186.22(e) does not require predicate offenses to be shown gang related and that gang experts may base opinions on hearsay reasonably relied upon in their field; applying these rules, it found sufficient evidence to support the criminal street gang findings and reinstated the gang enhancements.


People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal. 4th 605, 927 P.2d 713 (Cal. 1996)