State v. DeShay
2003 Minn. LEXIS 641, 2003 WL 22309855, 669 NW 2d 878 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony on gangs is inadmissible if it is largely duplicative of lay witness testimony, fails to assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence, and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- In 1999, Robert Jackley, a paid informant for the Duluth police, became acquainted with a group of individuals selling crack cocaine and heroin imported from Milwaukee.
- Jackley knew group members by street names, including 'Rat' (William Frazier), 'Animal' (Jim Lee), and 'Sickness' (Montell Andre DeShay).
- Jackley met DeShay in December 1999 at Lee's home and witnessed DeShay selling drugs on several occasions.
- On January 13, 2000, Jackley purchased approximately 0.1 grams of crack cocaine from DeShay in a controlled buy.
- After the purchase, DeShay instructed Jackley on where to conduct future purchases and told him the group no longer operated out of Lee's home.
- Other witnesses, Paul Taylor, Robin Raymond, and Melissa Sabrowski, confirmed the group's drug enterprise.
- These witnesses also described gang-like characteristics of the group, including a leadership structure, the use of gang signs and colors, and wearing jewelry with the words 'Breed' or 'New Breed'.
- The witnesses testified that members referred to the group as 'the Mob,' 'the New Breeds,' and an offshoot of the established 'Gangster Disciples' gang.
Procedural Posture:
- Montell Andre DeShay was charged in St. Louis County District Court with conspiracy to commit a controlled substance crime for the benefit of a gang and a substantive controlled substance crime for the benefit of a gang.
- At a jury trial, the court permitted Special Investigator Scott Jenkins to testify as a gang expert over defense counsel's objections.
- The jury returned a verdict finding DeShay guilty as charged.
- The district court entered a judgment of conviction on the conspiracy count and imposed a sentence.
- DeShay (appellant) appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the gang expert testimony.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding there was no error in the admission of the expert's testimony.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted DeShay's petition for further review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the admission of expert testimony about general gang characteristics and a defendant's gang affiliation error when the testimony is duplicative of lay witness accounts and not essential for the jury to understand the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Paul H., Justice
The admission of the gang expert testimony was error. Under Minn. R. Evid. 702, expert testimony is only admissible if it assists the trier of fact in understanding the evidence. In this case, the expert's testimony was largely duplicative of testimony from lay witnesses who had first-hand knowledge of the group's drug enterprise and gang-like characteristics. The state should prove the elements of a gang-related crime through such first-hand testimony, not by 'laundering' hearsay through an expert. Furthermore, the expert's testimony about general criminal activities of gangs, such as murder and drive-by shootings, was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to DeShay. Although admission was error, it was harmless because the other evidence against DeShay was so strong that the expert testimony did not substantially influence the verdict.
Concurring - Gilbert, Justice
While I agree with affirming the conviction, I disagree that the admission of the gang expert testimony was error. The state has the burden of proving that a crime was committed 'for the benefit of a gang,' and expert testimony is a proper and necessary tool to meet this burden. The gang identification criteria used by the expert were authorized by the legislature and are relied upon by law enforcement experts. The trial court has broad discretion in admitting expert testimony, and there was no clear error here. The majority's holding could improperly hinder future prosecutions of gang-related crimes and overlooks that much of the testimony was not properly objected to at trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the use of gang expert testimony in Minnesota by emphasizing that it must not be duplicative of lay witness testimony. It directs trial courts to act as gatekeepers, excluding expert testimony that does not add precision or depth beyond what fact witnesses can provide. While the court affirmed the conviction on harmless error grounds, the ruling establishes a precedent for defendants to challenge expert testimony that serves primarily to introduce prejudicial information about gangs in general rather than to explain specific evidence in the case. This forces prosecutors to build the 'benefit-of-a-gang' element on a foundation of direct, first-hand evidence rather than relying on an expert to characterize the defendant and his associates.
