of the neighborhood in which the shooting occurred to cooperate with law enforcement. Jackson views the testimony as irrelevant and prejudicial expert opinion testimony on the character of the neighborhood. A trial court’s decision on the relevance of evidence will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion, though the court’s decision is limited by the rules of evidence. Deville v. State, 917 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Three sections of the evidence code provide the framework for evaluating questions of relevance. The general rule is that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2007). “Relevant evidence is [defined as] evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” § 90.401, Fla. Stat. p.2002) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); People v. Skinner, 53 P.3d 720, 724
holding that expert testimony from a detective about the reluctance of witnesses residents of gang neighborhoods to testify in cases involving gang activity is relevant to the credibility of a witness holding that experts testimony as to aspects of gang culture relevant to the case including requirements of members obedience silence and staunch defense of other gang members and the punishment meted out to a gang member who violates these requirements went to factual matters outside the experience of the average juror holding that a gang expert could testify on what it meant to be a rat in gang culture because it was relevant to help understand discrepancies between some of the wit nesses statements to the police and their testimony at trial holding that an expert in the field of gangs and gang codes of behavior including the requirements of members obedience silence and staunch defense of other gang members and the punishment meted out to a gang member who violates these requirements could testify because these were factual matters outside the experience of the average juror holding that murder committed by minor gang members was not foreseeable result of sale of alcohol to gang members