Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

itself to appellant would be improper. However, with the term "we" left
undefined, the jury was likely to improperly attribute these acts to appellant.
Respondent's contention that the danger of confusion is mitigated by the
fact that appellant and Kelly are in the same gang indicates that respondent does
not understand how a jury is likely to misuse evidence of misconduct of other
gang members. The danger of prejudice and confusion is increased by the fact
that Kelly and the defendants are in the same gang because the prosecution expert
witnesses explained to the jury that gang members act on behalf of the gang.
Therefore, co-membership in the same gang will create a danger of prejudice,
rather than dispel it.
Contrary to respondent's argument (RB at p. 127), the fact that other
witnesses also testified that appellants got along with African-Americans does not
alleviate the prejudice from this error. Kelly testified as to other important facts
relied on by the defense-notably, that Contreras was a frequent
methamphetamine user, thereby suggesting that his testimony was unreliable due
to the influence ofmethamphetamine on Contreras's mental state. However, with
Kelly's testimony improperly impeached by evidence of an attempt to improperly
influence a possible witness, the jury would be likely to improperly dismiss other
aspects ofhis testimony.
C. Conclusion
In summary, the trial court erred in overruling the defense objection to the
rebuttal testimony by Glenn Phillips to the effect that Lawrence Kelly offered
Warren Battle $100 to testify that members of the West Side Wilmas Gang "get
along" with African-Americans. Because this evidence improperly undermined
the credibility of a defense witness, and because of the likelihood of confusion of
the issues, appellant was prejudiced by the introduction ofthis evidence, requiring
a reversal ofthe judgment ofconviction
87