Test Your Knowledge on Gang-Related Cases in the Legal System

Court orders remand for further proceedings in gang-related case

• The People concede that evidence presented at the preliminary hearing did not meet all of the new requirements under Assembly Bill 333 for gang-related offenses.

• The People agree that the evidence was insufficient to establish the predicate offenses commonly benefitted the gang in a way that was more than reputational.

• The People contend that the matter should be remanded to allow them an opportunity to prove the active participation charge and the gang enhancement allegations based on the new statutory requirements.

• The court concludes that remand is appropriate to permit the prosecution an opportunity to request to reopen the preliminary hearing proceedings and to present evidence on the new elements of the gang allegations or to choose to proceed without these charges.

• The court determines that the alleged deficiency in the evidence should be considered a “minor error of omission” such that remand and further preliminary hearing proceedings are permitted pursuant to section 995a, subdivision (b)(1).

• The court notes that determining whether an omission is minor must be done on a case-by-case basis.

• The court cites the case of Caple, which held that the term “minor omission” refers to one that is comparatively unimportant.

• The court concludes that the omitted evidence that the prosecution seeks to present in further proceedings is minor, given the bulk of other relevant evidence already presented.

• The court notes that the reopening of the preliminary hearing proceedings in this context does not permit the prosecutor a second chance to fill “an evidentiary vacuum concerning the gravamen of the offense.”

• The court adopts a remedy that is supportable as a rule of judicial procedure by application of the principles governing postconviction reversals based upon a change in the law.

• The court concludes that the issue here is not of insufficiency of the evidence, and further preliminary hearing proceedings should not be prohibited in such instances to permit the prosecution to prove new additional elements of an offense that go into effect after a defendant has been held to answer.

• The court orders that the matter be remanded, and on remand, the prosecution may request to continue the preliminary hearing to prove the active gang participation offense and gang enhancements in compliance with the requirements of section 186.22.Amended charges allowed in a gang-related case

• The case involves gang-related charges and enhancements against the defendant.

• The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the gang-related charges and enhancements.

• The magistrate judge granted the motion in part, dismissing the substantive gang charge and gang enhancement allegations.

• The prosecution appealed the magistrate judge's decision.

• The appellate court upheld the magistrate judge's decision to dismiss the gang charge and enhancements.

• The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient evidence connecting the defendant to the gang.

• However, the court allowed the prosecution to proceed with amended charges without the gang-related allegations.

• The prosecution can choose to proceed with the amended information.

• The appellate court did not disturb the magistrate judge's order in any other respect.

• The decision was made by a three-judge panel, including Acting P. J. Poochigian and J. Desantos.

• The decision was made in accordance with Assembly Bill 333.

• The case highlights the importance of sufficient evidence in establishing gang-related charges and enhancements.