Provision not unconstitutionally vague.

- O.C.G.A. § 16-15-3(1)(I) is not unconstitutionally vague as a plain reading of the subsection indicates that a defendant charged with violating the provision has to do more than commit a criminal offense; the defendant's conduct must also come within one of the defined categories of criminal gang activity enumerated in § 16-15-3(1)(A)-(H), (J), and the description of those crimes together with their correlating statutory provisions in the criminal code provide sufficient notice to the ordinary citizen and clear guidance to law enforcement authorities as to what conduct is forbidden. In re K.R.S., 284 Ga. 853, 672 S.E.2d 622 (2009).

Constitutionality.

- Trial court properly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss various counts charging the appellants with gang-related crimes under the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-15-1 et seq., since properly construed O.C.G.A. § 16-15-4(a) did not directly or indirectly infringe upon the First Amendment right to freedom of association as, to support a conviction, gang conduct or participation was required. Further, reading § 16-15-4(a) according to the natural and obvious import of the statute's language and in conjunction with the specific definitions in O.C.G.A. § 16-15-3, the statute provided a sufficiently definite warning to persons of ordinary intelligence of the prohibited conduct and was not susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and did not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, thus, the statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Rodriguez v. State, 284 Ga. 803, 671 S.E.2d 497 (2009).

Affray in violation of O.C.G.A.

§ 16-11-32 meets the definition of criminal gang activity in O.C.G.A. § 16-15-3(1)(J). - Offense of affray meets the definition of criminal gang activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-15-3(1)(J) because the fact that the combatants consent to fight does not negate that fighting is an act of violence. In re X. W., 301 Ga. App. 625, 688 S.E.2d 646 (2009).

Indictment insufficient when state unable to identify dates.

- Trial court did not err in granting the defendants' special demurrer to an indictment charging the defendants with participating in criminal street gang activity in violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-15-1 et seq., because absent some showing by the state that the state's evidence did not permit the state to identify the exact dates the gang came into existence, the indictment was imperfect and subject to special demurrer; although in most cases of this type it may not be possible for the state to show an exact date a criminal street gang came into existence, it is nevertheless incumbent upon the state to make some showing as to why the state can not determine that date, and ultimately, while the state may in fact be unable to pinpoint the particular dates of the alleged crimes, an appellate court cannot speculate about such a matter, but instead, the appellate court, like the trial court, is bound by the record before the court. State v. Hood, 307 Ga. App. 439, 706 S.E.2d 566 (2010).

Proof of a pattern of criminal gang activity was not established by the testimony of a police officer whose information was not based on first hand knowledge and by the testimony of another witness concerning crimes that were not shown to have been committed during the relevant time period. Green v. State, 266 Ga. 237, 466 S.E.2d 577 (1996).

Charge did not omit nexus between violence and gang activity.

- With regard to the defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and gang-related crimes, the trial court did not commit plain error with regard to the court's jury instructions because the trial court correctly stated the law by using the statutory language in the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-15-1 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 16-15-4(a), in the court's charge to the jury, so the charge did not omit a nexus between the violence, and it was not possible for the jury to convict the defendant without finding that nexus. Skinner v. State, 318 Ga. App. 217, 733 S.E.2d 506 (2012).

Admissibility of evidence of gang authority.

- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant's alleged membership in a gang because the evidence of gang membership was relevant to and probative of motive based on two witnesses testifying as to the defendant's gang affiliation. Anglin v. State, 302 Ga. 333, 806 S.E.2d 573 (2017).

Gang activity evidence sufficient.

- Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant on a charge of gang activity as it showed the commission of two or more enumerated offenses, including robbery and terroristic threats, that the offenses occurred after a specified statutory date, and that the offenses were committed by two or more persons after defendant and two other assailants abducted the victim, robbed the victim, and threatened to commit a violent act on the victim. Fulcher v. State, 259 Ga. App. 648, 578 S.E.2d 264 (2003).

Defendant juvenile was properly found to have committed the crime of participation in criminal street gang activity under O.C.G.A. § 16-15-4(a) because the evidence supported a finding that the defendant was part of a criminal street gang under O.C.G.A. § 16-15-3(2) based on the colors the defendant wore and the statement as to the removal of a gang tattoo and because the defendant committed the enumerated offenses of carrying a concealed weapon and theft by shoplifting as referenced by O.C.G.A. §§ 16-14-3 and16-15-3 and apparently stole a flare gun with the intent to further gang activity. In the Interest of C.P., 296 Ga. App. 572, 675 S.E.2d 287 (2009).

Delinquency petition properly charged that a juvenile participated in criminal street gang activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-15-4(e) because the petition stated that the juvenile did engage in, directly or indirectly, criminal gang activity, a crime of violence in the State of Georgia, as defined in O.C.G.A. § 16-15-3(1)(J), and the juvenile was also adjudicated delinquent for organizing and promoting an affray in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-32, which fell within the criminal conduct contemplated by O.C.G.A. § 16-15-3(1)(J); the juvenile instructed a student on becoming a gang member, organized a fight for the student, and gave the student a booklet containing gang history and jargon, and there was also evidence that the student paid the juvenile a "gang tax" and that the juvenile referenced being a lieutenant in the gang. In re X. W., 301 Ga. App. 625, 688 S.E.2d 646 (2009).

Evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that a juvenile committed an act which, had the juvenile been an adult, would have resulted in a conviction of participation in criminal street gang activity because the juvenile and gang investigator for a police department testified about the juvenile's familiarity with the gang and stated that there were more than three members of the gang, and a student testified that the juvenile facilitated an affray to further a gang activity, specifically the student's membership in the gang. In re X. W., 301 Ga. App. 625, 688 S.E.2d 646 (2009).

Evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of participation in criminal street gang activity. The evidence showed that the defendant was a member of an established street gang; additionally, the evidence that the defendant committed simple battery and less than a week later committed aggravated assault and aggravated battery against rival gang members showed a pattern of criminal gang activity. Lopez v. State, 297 Ga. App. 618, 677 S.E.2d 776 (2009), overruled on other grounds, State v. Gardner, 286 Ga. 633, 690 S.E.2d 164 (2010).

On a charge of criminal street gang activity, the state was properly allowed to admit videotapes seized from the defendants' home that were made two years earlier as the videotapes depicted gang-related images and activities; the videotapes were relevant to show the existence of the gang and the defendants' affiliation with the gang. Sifuentes v. State, 293 Ga. 441, 746 S.E.2d 127 (2013).

Evidence supported the second defendant's conviction for gang activity as the evidence allowed a jury 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 the gang. Zamudio v. State, 332 Ga. App. 37, 771 S.E.2d 733 (2015).

Sufficient evidence, including expert testimony, supported the appellants' convictions because the evidence established that the appellants were associated with a criminal street gang and that the armed robbery and aggravated assault the appellants engaged in constituted criminal street gang activity and were intended to further the interests of the gang. Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233, 794 S.E.2d 67 (2016).

Trial court did not err in admitting evidence that several months prior to the incident in the current case, the defendant was in possession of one or two guns because the evidence of the incident was relevant to show that while a member of a gang the defendant committed a criminal offense involving possession of a weapon as the defendant was a convicted felon at the time of the prior incident. Lang v. State, 344 Ga. App. 623, 812 S.E.2d 16 (2018).

Gang activity evidence insufficient.

- State failed to establish that a "criminal street gang" was involved in a battery for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 16-15-4(a). The investigating officer's testimony merely established that the juveniles were members of gangs, not the gangs' activities, and therefore was insufficient to show that the gangs were involved in criminal gang activity. In the Interest of A. D., 311 Ga. App. 384, 715 S.E.2d 787 (2011).

Conviction for violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-15-1 et seq., was reversed because there was no evidence beyond the bandanas and a notebook to link the juveniles to membership in a criminal street gang. To sustain a conviction, the state had to prove that the criminal gang activity or plans for the gang's continuation was ongoing at the time of the commission of the indicted offenses; in other words, the commission of an enumerated offense by the juveniles was not itself sufficient to prove the existence of a criminal street gang. In the Interest of A. G., 317 Ga. App. 165, 730 S.E.2d 187 (2012).

Defendant's conviction under the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-15-1 et seq., had to be reversed as the state did not present evidence of the necessary nexus between the defendant's drug crimes and an intent to further gang interests because, while the defendant might have intended, by distributing marijuana, to further the interests of individual gang members in obtaining small quantities of marijuana for personal use, the state did not show that the defendant meant to further the interests of the gang as an entity; and there was no evidence that the defendant's distribution of personal-use amounts of marijuana to individual gang members benefitted the gang itself through monetary profit, enhanced reputation, or other means. Randolph v. State, 334 Ga. App. 475, 780 S.E.2d 19 (2015).

Evidence was insufficient to adjudicate the defendant juvenile delinquent based on the offense of participation in criminal street gang activity because the only evidence that the defendant was involved with a criminal street gang was that the defendant was in the presence of two people who had previously been adjudicated as gang members and that the defendant possessed a gun that belonged to a gang member; and the state presented no evidence that the defendant was wearing any colors or attire that were uniquely associated with the gang, that the defendant had ever displayed signs or symbols affiliated with gang membership, or that the defendant had previously spent time with members of the gang. In the Interest of T. W., 344 Ga. App. 338, 810 S.E.2d 582 (2018).

Imposition of multiple sentences proper.

- Trial court did not err in imposing two sentences for criminal street gang activity as the defendant committed two offenses separately enumerated at different locations and different times against different victims. Veal v. State, 298 Ga. 691, 784 S.E.2d 403 (2016).

Cited in Veal v. State, 242 Ga. App. 873, 531 S.E.2d 422 (2000); In the Interest of L. P., 324 Ga. App. 78, 749 S.E.2d 389 (2013); State v. Jefferson, 302 Ga. 435, 807 S.E.2d 387 (2017); Kemp v. State, 303 Ga. 385, 810 S.E.2d 515 (2018); Stripling v. State, 304 Ga. 131, 816 S.E.2d 663 (2018).

ALR.

- Validity of criminal state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts and similar acts related to gang activity and the like, 58 A.L.R.6th 385.