What is the legal test used to overturn a criminal gang conviction?

Defendant was convicted of two violations of section 186.22, subdivision (a). "The substantive offense defined in section 186.22[, subdivision] (a) has three elements. Active participation in a criminal street gang, in the sense of participation that is more than nominal or passive, is the first element of the substantive offense defined in section 186.22 [, subdivision] (a). The second element is 'knowledge that [the gang's] members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity,' and the third element is that the person 'willfully promotes, furthers, or assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang.' [Citation.]" (People v. Lamas (2007) 42 Cal.4th 516, 523.)

In addressing challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, "the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citations.] The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] '"If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. [Citation.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054.) In other words, the sufficiency of

Page 10

evidence test used on review "does not require a court to 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.]" (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 309, 318-319.)

Defendant contends the evidence does not support his convictions for violating subdivision (a) of section 186.22. He maintains the evidence is legally insufficient in that it failed to demonstrate (1) he actively participated in the McClay Street gang, (2) he had knowledge of the criminal activities of the gang, or (3) that he aided and abetted a specific felony committed by gang members. The expert's opinion, which we discussed above, was sufficient to support the first element. (People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 585 [testimony of single witness sufficient unless it describes facts or events physically impossible or inherently improbable].)

"A gang engages in a 'pattern of criminal gang activity' when its members participate in 'two or more' statutorily enumerated criminal offenses (the so-called 'predicate offenses') that are committed within a certain time frame and 'on separate occasions, or by two or more persons.' [Citation.]" (People v. Zermeno (1999) 21 Cal.4th 927, 930, italics omitted.) The jury heard testimony concerning gang members having committed two statutorily enumerated criminal offenses. In addition, Lopez testified gang members brag about the crimes they commit. Defendant has been associated with the gang for some time and was in a position to brag about his acts and to hear others brag about theirs. As a result of defendant's past guilty plea and admission that he committed the crime for the benefit of or in association with the McClay Street gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), he was aware it qualified as a criminal street gang, i.e., its members engaged in a pattern of criminal activities. (People v. Tran (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1040, 1048.) Additionally, in this matter defendant committed two crimes on the list of offenses that may be used to establish the gang has a pattern of criminal gang activity. ( 186.22, subds. (e)(4) [possession of a controlled substance for sale], (e)(31) [felon in possession of a firearm].) A current offense can be considered as one of the offenses

Page 11

necessary to establish a pattern of criminal gang activity. (People v. Olguin, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1383.) Defendant certainly was aware of his own crimes. The jury could reasonably find on this evidence defendant knew the gang engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.