Raven Priam Morris, arguing for Gerald Elijah Crossley, told an appellate court that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony and other gang-related evidence that she said unfairly prejudiced the jury and infected the verdict.

Morris said she raised three issues on appeal but would concentrate on two that challenge the admission of evidence about a purported rivalry among rival groups and separate evidence of Crossley’s alleged membership or affiliation. "Without a gang motive for this case, Mr. Crossley’s alleged gang membership is absolutely irrelevant," Morris told the panel, contending the expert’s opinion was unreliable and that the record lacks the usual corroborating proof of membership such as a validation form, social-media corroboration, tattoos, or other confirming indicators.

The question at the heart of the argument was twofold: whether Investigator Robinson’s gang-expert testimony was sufficiently reliable under the standards governing expert opinion and whether evidence of alleged gang membership was admissible under Rule 404(b) after appropriate judicial findings and balancing. Morris argued the trial court failed to make the required findings by clear and convincing evidence and did not adequately weigh probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice.

State counsel Ryan Davis responded that the record contains substantial inculpatory facts that make the gang evidence probative of motive and identity. Davis walked the panel through the state’s factual narrative: Crossley was stopped in possession of a gun and drugs alongside the leader of the Ghost Mob Vice Lords, was later recorded in a video on the morning of the shooting holding what the state says was the murder weapon and, according to the state, saying, "I'm with them ghosties," and a K-9 alert and recovery of a gun in his backyard followed the shooting.

Davis told the court the trial judge issued a written ruling admitting gang evidence for limited purposes and that the court instructed the jury accordingly. He argued that the trial court’s ruling and the limiting instruction showed the court considered prejudice and that, even if error occurred, any error was harmless in light of the other evidence. He urged the court to affirm.

Judges pressed both sides on record specifics: whether the expert had been asked about the precise retaliatory pattern the state describes, how the victims and the alleged target related to earlier incidents, and whether trial counsel had preserved the relevant objections. The panel also discussed precedent, with counsel citing State v. Sims and other cases to distinguish or support admission of gang-related evidence.

Morris asked the court to vacate and dismiss all convictions if it finds the evidence inadmissible; alternatively she urged reversal and remand for a new trial. The panel took the case under advisement and called the next matter.

The court’s decision will turn on whether the panel concludes the trial court adequately made and articulated the required 404(b) findings, whether Investigator Robinson’s expert opinion was admissible under the governing expert-witness rules, and whether any error was harmless given the rest of the record.