T.R., a Juvenile v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0312
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0312 Lower Tribunal No. J24-1214 ________________

T.R., a juvenile, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dawn Denaro, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Lourdes B. Fernandez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

MILLER, J. Appellant, T.R., a juvenile, challenges an order withholding

adjudication of delinquency for battery, in violation of section 784.03(1)(a),

Florida Statutes (2024), and placing him on supervision until he attains the

age of nineteen. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in

allowing T.R.’s mother, the alleged victim, to testify that she believed certain

houseguests who were present at the time of the incident were affiliated with

a street gang. Under the unique circumstances of this case, we impute no

abuse of discretion and affirm.

BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2024, T.R.’s mother returned from running errands and

discovered he was hosting several friends in the living room. T.R.’s mother

was upset and emotional because she had previously prohibited T.R. from

inviting certain individuals to their residence. T.R. and his guests retreated

to his bedroom and T.R.’s mother followed, filming the group on her cell

phone while she shouted at the guests and demanded to know why they

were in the home. She also threatened to send everyone to jail.

A physical altercation between T.R. and his mother ensued. T.R.’s

mother called 911, and T.R. was arrested and later charged by way of a

delinquency petition with a single count of misdemeanor battery. The case

2 proceeded to a final adjudicatory hearing before the assigned delinquency

judge.

The facts surrounding the altercation were sharply disputed at the

hearing. T.R.’s mother attested on direct examination that she became

“hysterical” upon arriving home because T.R.’s guests were “very bad

people.” She contended that after she began filming the group, her son

placed her in a headlock and pushed her against a wall while his friends fled

the residence. She offered her cell phone video and several photographs in

support of her testimony.

When probed as to her disdain for her son’s guests, T.R.’s mother

stated she believed they were street gang members who self-described as

“Red Flags” and wore red flags in their back pocket to demonstrate their

affiliation. T.R.’s attorney objected. Observing that T.R.’s mother’s

comments were “just her personal opinion,” the trial court overruled the

objection.

The record reflects the following exchange on cross-examination:

QUESTION: When you say you’re hysterical, what were you— describe that for us. What do you mean you were hysterical? Were you crying? Were you yelling?

ANSWER: I was irritated, shocked, and in disbelief.

QUESTION: So, you were in shock and disbelief that your teenage son would have friends over in his home?

3 ANSWER: Gang members.

* * *

QUESTION: So, your opinion of his friends [is] that they’re gang members?

ANSWER: That’s correct.

T.R., on the other hand, testified that he did not intentionally touch or

strike his mother. Instead, he stated that he attempted to use his body as a

barrier “boxing his mother out” from blocking his friends’ only means of

egress from the bedroom. He also asserted that his mother struck him

repeatedly on the head.

Noting the dysfunctionality of the family dynamic, the trial court

nonetheless found T.R.’s mother credible and determined her testimony was

consistent with the other evidence. The court withheld adjudication of

delinquency and placed T.R. on supervision until his nineteenth birthday.

This appeal ensued.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A trial court enjoys broad discretion in admitting evidence. See State

v. Martin, 277 So. 3d 265, 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Even so, the decision to

admit evidence is necessarily constrained by precedent and the Florida

4 Rules of Evidence. See Silver v. State, 278 So. 3d 337, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA

2019).

LEGAL ANALYSIS

It is axiomatic that evidence of gang affiliation must be closely

scrutinized because it “can be inflammatory, with the danger being that it

leads the [factfinder] to ‘attach a propensity for committing crimes to

defendants who are affiliated with gangs or that [the factfinder]’s negative

feelings toward gangs will influence its verdict.’” United States v. Harris, 587

F.3d 861, 867 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Montgomery, 390

F.3d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 2004)). The risk of prejudice is not limited to direct

evidence of a defendant’s membership. Rather, “[g]uilt by association is a

genuine concern whenever gang evidence is admitted.” Id. (quoting

Montgomery, 390 F.3d at 1018).

Despite these perils, Florida courts have long recognized that “in some

contexts, evidence of gang membership may be admissible.” Reyes v. State,

783 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing John E. Theuman,

Admissibility of Evidence of Accused’s Membership in Gang, 39 A.L.R. 4th

775 (1985) and Edward J. Imwinkelried et al., Courtroom Criminal Evidence

§ 907 (3d ed. 1998)). Certain courts have noted that such evidence may be

relevant “to explain . . . disputed or unclear issues” in a given case. Id.

5 Others have similarly found that gang affiliation or prior acts testimony may

be inextricably intertwined with a charged crime. See Hayes v. State, 338

So. 3d 1123, 1131–32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (finding no error in admission of

inextricably intertwined gang evidence); Laflipe v. State, 888 So. 2d 104,

105–06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding trial court did not err in admitting gang

evidence where it was relevant to prove motive for shooting); Millan v. State,

932 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding trial court did not abuse its

discretion in admitting evidence that defendant and codefendant were active

members of Latin Kings gang to link them to carvings on victim’s forehead);

Cosme v. State, 89 So. 3d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding trial

court did not err in admitting evidence of gang affiliation as relevant to

consequences for disobeying orders).

Against this background, we examine the instant case. Casting aside

any contention of invited error stemming from the cross-examination, the trial

court’s comments demonstrated it admitted the testimony for the limited

purpose of establishing T.R.’s mother’s subjective belief. Indeed, the court

expressly disclaimed any factual significance in the testimony.

T.R.’s mother’s subjective view placed her reaction—particularly the

raw emotion depicted in the video clip—to what might otherwise appear to

be a minor infraction of her parenting rules in context. The belief that T.R.’s

6 friends were affiliated with a gang was relevant to presenting “a complete

and coherent narrative of what transpired, particularly from [her]

perspective.” Paul v. State, 407 So. 3d 468, 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); see

also United States v. Quan, 69 F. App’x 891, 892 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The

victim’s testimony regarding her fear and her belief Chang was a gang

member was therefore relevant.”).

Further, T.R.’s mother did not testify that she believed her son was

involved in a gang. On the contrary, she stated she did not want her son to

interact with these particular friends because they were “bad people.”

Hence, the trial court had no basis for imputing gang membership to T.R.,

and therefore there is no indication the probative value of the evidence was

outweighed by unfair prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the

trial court.

Affirmed.