Sifuentes v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting videotapes police seized from the defendants' home in a prior investigation, as the videotapes were relevant in proving the existence of the gang and the defendants' association with it.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Brothers Gerardo and Eduardo Sifuentes were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with a shooting that caused the death of Eduardo Delgadillo and injured Mauricio Medina and Elijah Espinoza. Both Appellants appeal the denial of their respective motions for new trial, asserting insufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary error, and trial counsel ineffectiveness. Gerardo also challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for pretrial immunity based on self-defense. We find no error, except with respect to Eduardo’s conviction for theft by taking, which was not supported by the evidence, and his convictions on two additional counts predicated on the theft by taking. We therefore affirm the judgment against Gerardo in its entirety, and we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment against Eduardo.1

Construed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence adduced at trial established as follows. Appellants are both members of a street gang known as the Nortenos or “Northsiders.” Victims Delgadillo, Espinoza, and Medina were all either members of or associated with members of a rival gang, the Surenos or “Southsiders.” The site where the shooting occurred, an Austell apartment complex known as Ivy Commons, was located within the Surenos’ recognized territory. Approximately two months earlier, Ivy Commons had been the site of a physical altercation between a Norteno group and a Sureno group, during which Eduardo had broken the nose of one of the Surenos. The apartments had also been a regular site of graffiti “tagging,” whereby one gang would deface buildings and other visible structures with its symbols, only to be destroyed by or replaced by the symbols of the other gang.

Sifuentes v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting videotapes police seized from the defendants' home in a prior investigation, as the videotapes were relevant in proving the existence of the gang and the defendants' association with it.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report