X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 22 / 43

98 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

22 / 43

Villanueva indicated the crimes he mentioned in his declaration were only “a sampling of some of the crimes committed by the Broderick Boys in the Safety Zone” that he personally investigated.  The trial court was presented with the criminal records of the 23 named defendants, but not other gang members.  Furthermore, the other intimidating conduct of the Broderick Boys tends to paralyze the community which diminishes their need to actually commit further assaults to maintain control.

Regarding defendants’ argument that only six of the offenses relied upon by plaintiff involved a gang charge, this is a nonstarter.  Defendants cite a 2009 Court of Appeal decision for the proposition that “crimes that are not gang related are not a basis for concluding that they are being committed for the purpose of promoting or benefiting a criminal street gang.”  However, after defendants filed their opening brief in this matter, the opinion was ordered not to be published by the California Supreme Court.  Furthermore, defendant’s argument presupposes that a crime that is not charged as a gang offense is not gang related.  But there may be many reasons why a prosecutor may choose not to charge a given crime as a gang offense, notwithstanding the fact it was committed in order to benefit the gang.  Even crimes that were not technically committed for the purpose of benefitting a gang may nevertheless have that effect.  Furthermore, a gang injunction may properly prohibit conduct of gang members irrespective of whether that conduct is undertaken to further the purposes of the gang.  (People ex rel. Totten v. Colonia

22

Document info
Document views98
Page views98
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 12:47:34 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments