But no requirement exists for a defendant to be charged with criminal street gang activity before otherwise relevant evidence of gang activity may be admitted. Wolfe v. State , 273 Ga. 670, 674 (4) (c), 544 S.E.2d 148 (2001). Like other evidence, the admission of evidence of gang activity is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision to admit such evidence will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Anglin acknowledges that evidence regarding gang membership may be relevant to show motive. See United States v. Harrell, 737 F.2d 971, 978 (11th Cir. 1984) ; Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674 (4) (a), 544 S.E.2d 148 (2001). But he contends there was no evidence presented at trial to show that the charged crimes were motivated by gang membership.
(Citations omitted.) Wolfe v. State , 273 Ga. 670, 674 (4) (c), 544 S.E.2d 148 (2001). See also OCGA § 24-4-418 (c) (admissibility of criminal gang activity; "[t]his Code section shall not be the exclusive means to admit or consider evidence described in this Code section."
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this portion of the statement was relevant for impeachment purposes, and this is true even though the evidence of Redding's alleged gang affiliation may have incidentally put his character in issue. See Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674(4)(a), 544 S.E.2d 148 (2001) (evidence of defendant's gang affiliation admissible, despite its negative reflection on defendant's character, where it was “relevant and material to an issue in the case”). This enumeration, thus, is without merit.
]" (Emphasis supplied.) Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674 (4) (a) ( 544 SE2d 148) (2001). Though we have on numerous occasions affirmed the admission of evidence regarding a defendant's affiliation with controversial organizations or belief in unpopular ideologies, in all such instances this evidence was directly relevant to a contested issue in the case such as motive, identity, or intent.
"[E]vidence that is relevant and material to an issue in the case is not rendered inadmissible because it incidentally places the defendant's character in issue." Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674 (4) (a) ( 544 SE2d 148) (2001). The testimony at issue was evidence of appellant's motive for his actions that resulted in the death of one man and injury to another.
Furthermore, there is no requirement that the State charge a defendant with a gang-related offense "in order to admit otherwise relevant evidence of gang activity." Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674 (4) (c) ( 544 SE2d 148) (2001). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in admitting the writings into evidence.
The State is authorized to present I evidence of a defendant's possible motive for committing a crime, Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6 (4) ( 515 SE2d 155) (1999), and such evidence does not become inadmissible merely because it may incidentally place the defendant's character in issue. Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670 (4) (a) ( 544 SE2d 148) (2001) (evidence of gang membership admissible to show motive); Mize v. State, 269 Ga. 646 (3) ( 501 SE2d 219) (1998) (evidence of racist beliefs and group affiliation admissible to demonstrate motive for crimes). Because the challenged evidence demonstrated the closeness of appellant's relationship with his girlfriend, it was relevant to the issue of motive and properly admitted into I evidence. 4. Contrary to appellant's contention, the trial court did not err I by allowing the State to ask his mother whether she believed the crimes were gang related.
This result is unwarranted and unnecessary, as Hines could be prosecuted and convicted of an appropriate lesser crime, such as involuntary manslaughter or the misuse of a firearm while hunting.Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670 ( 544 S.E.2d 148) (2001).Taylor v. State, 275 Ga. 461( 569 S.E.2d 520) (2002).
But here, the State introduced evidence from which a jury would be authorized to find a nexus between the defendants' actions in seeking out and beating up the victim and their intent to further gang activity by ensuring that the gang responded strongly to the victim's disrespect of a gang member's offer of association. See Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674(4)(d), 544 S.E.2d 148 (2001) (State linked evidence of gang activity to motive for crime and hierarchy of gang); In the Interest of X.W., 301 Ga.App. 625, 629 –630(3), 688 S.E.2d 646 (2009) (evidence juvenile told detective he began fighting rival gang member to get “his rank back up” after a “disrespect or violation issue” sufficient to establish participation in gang activity). Accordingly, we find that the evidence presented was sufficient to authorize a reasonable jury to conclude that Gonzalez participated in criminal gang activity that furthered the interests of a criminal gang.