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

‘[v]iolence . . . [u]p to death.’
“(5) In order to join MS-13, a prospective member must be ‘jumped in,’
meaning that he is ‘beaten by usually four or five gang members. It’s called
a 13. Because, technically, it’s suppose to be for 13 seconds.’”
On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred by allowing Sgt. Norris to
testify at all as to the gang-related history, activity and culture of MS-13. Asserting that such
testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, he submits that it served no purpose other
than to prejudice the appellant, by misleading the jury into believing that the appellant’s
membership in the gang, MS-13, caused him to form the intent for premeditated murder. He
posits specific points that Sgt. Norris emphasized in his testimony, the origins of the name,
the initiation practices and the penalty for impersonating a gang member, to prove his point.
The appellant maintains that testimony regarding the origins of the MS-13 gang’s name as
deriving from a connection with the Mexican Mafia, the initiation practice of “jumping in,”
and the punishments related to “false flagging” have absolutely no relevance, thus, value, in
this case, as they do not relate to, elucidate or explain any issue in this case. There were no
facts presented in this case, nor any allegations made, that the appellant acted under the
direction, or for the purposes, of the Mexican Mafia, or that the murder was committed as
part of an initiation or in response to “false flagging” by the victim.
The majority holds that expert testimony regarding gang activities and culture, such
as that given by Sgt. Norris, is admissible as long as “fact evidence establishes that the crime
charged was gang-related and the probative value of the testimony is not substantially
outweighed by any unfair prejudice to the defendant.” Gutierrez, __ Md. at __, __ A.2d at
3