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

(3) When a non-gang member uses hand-signs that identify him
as a member of MS-13, also known as “false flagging,” he
would “be subject to punishment up to death.”
(4) When responding to criticism of their gang, MS-13 members
react with “[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.”
Gutierrez contends that evidence of his affiliation with MS-13 coupled with Norris’s
testimony about the violent culture of the gang constituted inadmissible prior bad acts
evidence. The State, on the other hand, maintains that Gutierrez’s claims are not preserved
for appeal and, alternatively, that the evidence was admissible because it was “highly
probative of premeditation, motive and intent.”
A. Preservation
The State, ever vigilant in its search for waiver of error, contends that Gutierrez never
challenged the particular aspects of Norris’s testimony that he now complains of on appeal,
and thus his claims are not preserved for review by this Court. According to the State,
defense counsel simply objected to any general expert testimony regarding MS-13. With
only this general continuing objection, the State avers that Gutierrez cannot now single out
certain portions of the testimony as more inadmissible than others.
In support of its rationale, the State cites B. Sifrit v. State, 383 Md. 116, 136, 857 A.2d
88, 99–100 (2004), in which this Court refused to review a trial court’s denial of evidence
because the defendant’s theory of relevance on appeal was different from the theory he
7