State v. Ayala

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s murder and conspiracy convictions. It assumed without deciding that testimony recounting a coconspirator’s statement was improperly admitted, but held the error harmless because the testimony was cumulative, corroborated by other evidence, and not emphasized in closing argument. The court also held that testimony about the victim’s fear of the gang was relevant and not unduly prejudicial because it demonstrated a deteriorating relationship and supported an inference of motive, with independent evidence linking the defendant to the gang’s conduct. D’AURIA, J., dissenting, would have found the coconspirator evidence improperly admitted and harmful, requiring reversal and a new trial.