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

equirement may be satisfied by fact evidence that, at first glance, may not indicate gang
motivations, but when coupled with expert testimony, provides the gang-crime connection.
For example, an expert’s testimony that the crime was committed in rival gang territory may
be necessary to show why the defendant’s presence in that area, a fact established by other
evidence, was motivated by his gang affiliation. See McDaniels, 166 Cal. Rptr. at 14–15.
As another example, expert testimony that a gang, of which the defendant is a member,
specializes in drug trafficking may be used to show why drug paraphernalia found in the
defendant’s apartment demonstrates that he was a part of a larger drug conspiracy with other
gang members. See Robinson, 978 F.2d 1563–64. In adopting this threshold requirement,
we are simply saying that a defendant’s membership in a gang, in and of itself, is not
enough. 3
Here, evidence supplied by no less than three fact witnesses suggested that
Quintanilla’s murder was motivated by Gutierrez’s ties to MS-13. In Tirado’s grand jury
testimony, supplied to the jury in this case as a State exhibit, he claimed that Gutierrez shot
Quintanilla as part of a gang initiation:
2 (...continued)
A.2d at 959. We disagree and hold that some evidence connecting the crime and the gang
is required.
3 We are not suggesting that gang membership will never establish the necessary link
between the crime and the gang. As in Ayala and Utz, fact evidence showing that the
defendant and the victim belonged to rival gangs, or that the defendant mistakenly believed
that the victim was a member of a rival gang, may be enough to open the door to gang expert
testimony.
18