Background
Isai Ramos Damian was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm, four counts of unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm, two counts of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, and second-degree assault with a firearm. On appeal, he challenged the admission of testimony about gang indicators and “hood checks,” the admission of cellphone-location maps generated from call-detail records, and the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on all eight counts.
The state’s evidence included testimony, security footage, and GPS data. It indicated that a gang-related verbal confrontation involving the driver of a car and one victim occurred about 20 minutes before the shooting; that the same car was used in the shooting; that Damian had driven it earlier that evening; and that, except for a brief stop at Damian’s apartment, the car remained in motion between the confrontation and the shooting. The evidence also placed Damian’s cellphone in the car during the shooting and showed that calls were made from it immediately afterward.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying on the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Herring, the court held that testimony identifying Damian and the victim as members of rival gangs and explaining a hood check was relevant to Damian’s motive. That reasoning did not require an inference that Damian had a general propensity for violence merely because of gang membership. The opinion did not separately analyze Damian’s alternative OEC 403 argument.
The court also held that the cellphone-location maps were not hearsay. Under its prior decision in State v. Weber, machine-generated images are not statements made by a person, and Damian did not establish that Weber was distinguishable or plainly wrong.
Finally, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the court held that a rational factfinder could infer that Damian was the shooter. Although the evidence could support multiple reasonable inferences, choosing among them was the jury’s role, so the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of gang affiliation and gang practices may be relevant to motive when the inferential chain does not depend on treating gang membership as proof of a violent disposition.
- Cellphone-location maps generated by software from call-detail records are not hearsay under Oregon precedent because they are produced by a machine rather than asserted by a person.
- Circumstantial evidence connecting a defendant, a vehicle, and a cellphone to a shooting can permit a rational jury to identify the defendant as the shooter.
Why It Matters
The decision applies recent Oregon Supreme Court guidance distinguishing permissible motive evidence involving gangs from impermissible propensity reasoning. It also reaffirms Oregon precedent treating machine-generated visualizations as nonhearsay and confirms that competing reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence generally remain for the jury.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.