Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Calguns LEOs (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=167)
-   -   PC 186.22(a) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=667502)

Watchur6 12-31-2012 5:39 AM

PC 186.22(a)
 
Anybody hear about the California Supremes action on this PC?

WILDMAN442 12-31-2012 6:17 AM

Sure did...

Definitely going to affect how things are done. I saw the case though and think it was BS that his crime was not related to the criminal enterprise... WTF?!

He was getting money for the rest of the gang. Send one and its less collateral if he is caught... Effing CA man.

Justin

Watchur6 12-31-2012 6:20 AM

Ya, unbelievable. Your right, "send one and its less collateral"

Heiko 01-01-2013 12:39 AM

HERE is a link to the full opinion.

The rationale of the opinion is based on a pure technical interpretation of the statutory language and ignores the reality of game crime. Not all is lost since the Court points out that 188.22(b)(1) enhancement can still apply to the lone actor but that might be a little more difficult to prove than the substantive 186.22(a)(1) count. The enhancement carries more time at 2-3-4 versus 16-2-3.

Good gang packets and good gang experts will carry the day.

Watchur6 01-01-2013 12:56 AM

Thank you for the link.

Bobby Ricigliano 01-01-2013 1:15 AM

Hey, what's one more kick in the face to law enforcement by the courts? Maybe just 212 everything and let the gangs do whatever they want.

Arrowhunters5 01-01-2013 1:47 AM

This is a really bad decision. I have been working gangs since 2008. We have been getting some really good convictions lately of 186.22 and it has been having positive impact on the streets. This state sure seems bass ackwards most of the time.:facepalm:

Happy New in in California:(

Heiko 01-01-2013 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watchur6 (Post 10075009)
Thank you for the link.

My pleasure!

Yes, I have to agree that California just keeps shining brightly. :confused: I am still surprised that the voters kept the DP though. Glad they did, but still surprised. Between AB109 [1170(h)], both Prop 36s (drugs and new 3 Strikes), and case law like this, it's no wonder our communities are the way they are. Job security, I guess.

I think that losing the substantive gang count does hurt. Going with the enhancement is a way to save it but I think it makes it more difficult to prove because the need to prove that the crime was committed with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. It would be that "specific intent" that could be the hangup for often confused jurors. That's why I think a good gang expert with docs that can back up whether the defendant had committed other crimes with that specific intent or that other members of his gang have committed the same or similar crimes, and if there happens to be a similar set of facts where more than one of the gang members were involved would be great. Anything that would show that the crime was not a "one off" non-gang crime would be good. I think if it can be shown that other members of his gang do the same crimes and even with the same MO would lend credence to the gang expert testifying that it is all part of that "specific intent" because that is what that gang does and how they make money. Just some thoughts.... I'll shut up now. :)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.