HEADNOTE: Mario Rodriguez Gutierrez v. State of Maryland, No. 98 ...

to the Mexican Mafia, the “jumping in” process, and the expectation that gang members must
“get[] at [the gang’s enemies].” Id. at 654–55, 923 A.2d at 956. The detective also identified
the 18th Street Gang as the chief rival of MS-13. See id. at 655, 923 A.2d at 956.
In affirming the trial court’s admission of the State’s expert witness, the Court of
Special Appeals stated that the testimony served to “explain the otherwise inexplicable, by
providing a motive for a brutal and seemingly senseless killing.” Ayala, 174 Md. App. at
664, 923 A.2d at 961 (quotation marks omitted). The Court conceded that “evidence that a
defendant is a member of an organization known for violent acts may be evidence of bad
character or prior bad acts.” Ayala, 174 Md. App. at 658, 923 A.2d at 958. Yet it reasoned
that
[g]ang evidence is relevant when . . . it provides motive for an
otherwise inexplicable act . . . . In particular, any evidence that
tends to show the defendant had a motive for killing the victim
is relevant because it enhances the probability that the defendant
did kill the victim.
* * *
There may be strong prejudice against street gangs . . . but that
alone does not render gang evidence inadmissible. Gang
evidence is admissible despite the prejudice that attaches if it is
relevant and particularly if it is crucial in establishing motive.
Id. at 663, 923 A.2d at 961 (quoting People v. Davis, 779 N.E.2d 443, 456 (Ill. App. Ct.
2002)). According to the Court of Special Appeals, the expert’s testimony corroborated
Ayala’s pretrial statements about gang membership and “was highly probative in that it
explained the gang’s code of conduct and revealed the gang’s long and bitter rivalry with the
16