## Facts

- A violent feud occurred in the early 2010s between the 5/9 Brim gang and rival Crips sets in San Diego.
- The prosecution charged a broad conspiracy: a purported two-year agreement among at least 20 gang members to kill rival gang members, without specifying targets, times, or places.
- Nicholas Hoskins (a codefendant) was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced to 25 years to life.
- The evidence against Hoskins showed:
  - documented membership in 5/9 Brim;
  - social media posts and images expressing gang affiliation and celebrating violence against rivals;
  - access to firearms, including possession of a loaded, concealed firearm; and
  - association with other gang members, including individuals tied to specific violent crimes.
- The prosecution presented no evidence that Hoskins committed, attempted, planned, or assisted any specific act of violence, unlike other defendants linked to particular shootings.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of gang membership, expressive social media activity, association with violent gang members, and access to firearms was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoskins intended to enter into an agreement to commit murder.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s affirmance as to Hoskins’s conspiracy-to-commit-murder conviction.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to show Hoskins had the specific intent to join an agreement to commit murder.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Conspiracy requires (1) an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime and (2) specific intent to agree and to commit (or aid in committing) the target crime.
- Agreement and intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but the proof must support a finding that the defendant actually joined the charged agreement.
- Evidence of gang membership, association, weapon access, or violent posturing may be relevant to motive or identity, but does not by itself establish the intent to enter a specific criminal agreement.
- Under substantial-evidence review, courts view evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, but speculative leaps that collapse gang membership into conspiratorial agreement cannot sustain a conviction.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that generalized evidence of gang affiliation, expressive glorification of violence, and gun access did not prove that Hoskins joined the charged, open-ended agreement to murder rivals; without concrete evidence connecting him to an actual agreement, the conspiracy conviction could not stand.


People v. Ware, 14 Cal. 5th 151, 520 P.3d 601, 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 511 (Cal. 2022)