Ramos, Jeni Eunice A.
3C Evidence Tuesday 4:30-8:30 pm
Case Digests Assignment
Atty. Rico ao!o "uic#o
$pinion Ru!e %Ru!e &30, 'ection 48 and 4() Domingo vs. Domingo *R +o. &08( && Api! /00 Facts: Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Decision of CA which affirmed the judgment of RTC dismissing herein petitioners complaint for declaration of the nullit! of a deed of a"solute sale over a house and lot located at Project 4# $ue%on Cit!&
Petiti Petitioner oner is the oldest oldest of the 5 childr children en of the late 'runo 'runo Doming Domingo# o# former formerl! l! the registered owner of the properties su"ject of the dispute& Private respondents are petitioners si"lings& A famil! (uarrel arose over the validit! of the purported sale of the house and lot "! their father to private respondents& 'runo Domingo was the registered owner of the su"ject house and lot& )e needed mone! for his medical e*pense so he sold the properties# he signed a Deed of A"solute +ale conve!ing the house and lot to his children private respondents for P,-.& the deed was witnessed "! /"ane%# 0orona and notari%ed "! Att! 0orona& 1ose# one of the children# "rought the deed to the register of deeds and a new title was issued in their names& 'runo then died& Petitioner# who "! then was residing on the disputed propert!# received a notice from $ue%on Cit! )all declaring him a s(uatter and directing him to demolish his shant! on the lot& Petitioner found out that the planned demolition was at the instance of his si"lings& )e assailed the Deed of A"solute +ale upon learning of its e*istence& 2pon advice of his counsel# he had the then Philippine Consta"ular!3/ntegrated 0ational Police# now P0P# compare the signature of 'runo against specimen signatures of his father& /t was concluded that different persons signed therein& )e filed complaint for forger!# falsification "! notar! pu"lic and falsification "! private individuals against his si"lings and Att! 0orona& 0'/# however# came up with the conclusion that the (uestioned signature and the specimen signature were written "! one and the same person# 'runo& )is complaint was dismissed& Peti Petiti tione onerr then then file filed d for for null nullit it! ! of the the sale sale&& )e conte contend nded ed it was forg forged ed&& Priv Privat atee respondents relied heavil! on the findings of the 0'/ that the signature was not forger!& RTC dismissed dismissed the case# CA dismissed dismissed it as well& /ssue: hether or not the court correctl! applied the ruled on evidence in disregarding the conflicting PC3/0P and 0'/ (uestioned document reports& )eld: 6es& 2nder the Rules of Court# the genuineness of a handwriting ma! "e proved "! the following: 7,8 A witness who actuall! saw the person writing the instrument9 78 A witness familiar with such handwriting and who can give his opinion thereon# such opinion "eing an e*ception to the opinion rule9
78 A comparison "! the court of the (uestioned handwriting and admitted genuine specimen thereof9 and 748 ;*pert evidence& The law ma.es no preference# much less distinction among and "etween the different means stated a"ove in proving the handwriting of a person& /t is li.ewise clear from the foregoing foregoing that courts are not "ound to give pro"ative pro"ative value or evidentiar! evidentiar! value to the opinions of handwr handwriti iting ng e*perts e*perts## as resort resort to handwri handwritin ting g e*pert e*pertss is not mandat mandator! or!&& The (uestio (uestioned ned document report# the appellate court o"served: The PC3/0P used as standards of comparison the alleged signatures of 'runo in two documents# namel!: letter to the 'ureau of Treasur! dated April ,# ,<5= and Repu"lic 'an. Chec. 0o& 4,45> dated 0ovem"er # ,<>& These documents precede "! more than eight !ears the (uestioned Deed which was e*ecuted on Decem"er -# , ma! involve characteristics different from those "orne "! a signature affi*ed in ,
C#aacte Evidence %Ru!e &30, 'ection &) eop!e vs. ee *R +o. &3(00 /( 1ay /00/ Facts: Autom Automat atic ic revi review ew from from the the decis decisio ion n of RTC RTC convi convict ctin ing g ee ee to deat death h for for mu murd rder er&& Accused3appellant was convicted of the crime of murder for the death of 1oseph ar(ue% and sentenced to death& n appeal# accused3appellant assailed the credi"ilit! of )erminia ar(ue%# the lone prosecution e!ewitness& Accused3appellant claims that the trial court should not have accepted )erminia@s testimon! "ecause it is "iased# incredi"le and inconsistent&
/ssue: hether or not )eminia testimon! is admissi"le& hether or not victims "ad character ma! a"solved accused& )eld: 6es& Th Thee +upr +uprem emee Cour Courtt held held that that )erm )ermin inia ia@s @s test testim imon! on! was posi positi tive ve## clea clearr and and straightforward& +he did not waver in her narration of the shooting incident# neither did she waffle in recounting her son@s death& +he was su"jected "! defense counsel to rigorous cross and re3cro re3cross ss e*amina e*aminatio tions ns and !et she stuc. to her testim testimon! on! given given in the direct direct e*aminat e*amination ion&& oreove oreover# r# as "etween "etween )erminia )erminia@s @s testim testimon! on! in open open court court and her sworn sworn statem statement ent## an!
inconsistenc! therein does not necessaril! discredit the witness& Affidavits are generall! considered inferior to open court declarations "ecause affidavits are ta.en e*3parte and are almost alwa!s incomplete and inaccurate& ftentimes# the! are e*ecuted when the affiant@s mental faculties are not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunit! of narrating in full the incident that transpired& The! are usuall! not prepared "! the affiant himself "ut "! another who suggests words to the affiant# or worse# uses his own language in ta.ing the affiant@s statements& Accused3appellant ma.es capital of 1oseph@s "ad reputation in their communit!& )e alleges that the victim@s drug ha"it led him to commit other crimes and he ma! have "een shot "! an! of the persons from whom he had stolen& As proof of 1oseph@s "ad character# appellant presented )erminia@s letter to a!or alon%o see.ing his assistance for 1oseph@s reha"ilitation from drugs& n re"uttal# )erminia admitted that she wrote such letter to a!or alon%o "ut denied an!thing a"out her son@s thiever!& Character evidence is governed "! +ection 5,# Rule ,- of the Revised Rules on ;vidence# E+ection 5,& Character evidence not generall! admissi"le9 e*ceptions: 7a8 /n Criminal Cases: 7,8 The accused ma! prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged& 78 2nless in re"uttal# the prosecution ma! not prove his "ad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged& 78 The good or "ad moral character of the offended part! ma! "e proved if it tends to esta"lish in an! reasona"le degree the pro"a"ilit! or impro"a"ilit! of the offense charged& Character is defined to "e the possession "! a person of certain (ualities of mind and morals# distinguishing him from others& /t is the opinion generall! entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are ac(uainted with him9 his reputation& EBood moral characterE includes all the elements essential to ma.e up such a character9 among these are common honest! and veracit!# especiall! in all professional intercourse9 a character that measures up as good among people of the communit! in which the person lives# or that is up to the standard of the average citi%en9 that status which attaches to a man of good "ehavior and upright conduct& The rule is that the character or reputation of a part! is regarded as legall! irrelevant in determining a controvers!# so that evidence relating thereto is not admissi"le& rdinaril!# if the issues in the case were allowed to "e influenced "! evidence of the character or reputation of the parties# the trial would "e apt to have the aspects of a popularit! contest rather than a factual in(uir! into the merits of the case& After all# the "usiness of the court is to tr! the case# and not the man9 and a ver! "ad man ma! have a righteous cause& There are e*ceptions to this rule however and +ection 5,# Rule ,- gives the e*ceptions in "oth criminal and civil cases& /n the Philippine setting# proof of the moral character of the offended part! is applied with fre(uenc! in se* offenses and homicide& /n rape and acts of lasciviousness or in an! prosecution involving an unchaste act perpetrated "! a man against a woman where the willingness of a woman is material# the woman@s character as to her chastit! is admissi"le to show whether or not she consented to the man@s act& The e*ception to this is when the woman@s consent is immaterial such as in statutor! rape or rape with violence or intimidation& /n the crimes of (ualified seduction or consented a"duction# the offended part! must "e a Evirgin#E which is Epresumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation#E or a Evirtuous woman of good
reputation&E The crime of simple seduction involves Ethe seduction of a woman who is single or a widow of good reputation# over twelve "ut under eighteen !ears of age & & & &E The "urden of proof that the complainant is a woman of good reputation lies in the prosecution# and the accused ma! introduce evidence that the complainant is a woman of "ad reputation /n homicide cases# a pertinent character trait of the victim is admissi"le in two situations: 7,8 as evidence of the deceased@s aggression9 and 78 as evidence of the state of mind of the accused& The pugnacious# (uarrelsome or trou"le3see.ing character of the deceased or his calmness# gentleness and peaceful nature# as the case ma! "e# is relevant in determining whether the deceased or the accused was the aggressor& hen the evidence tends to prove self3defense# the .nown violent character of the deceased is also admissi"le to show that it produced a reasona"le "elief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifia"le conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessar!& /n the instant case# proof of the "ad moral character of the victim is irrelevant to determine the pro"a"ilit! or impro"a"ilit! of his .illing& Accused3appellant has not alleged that the victim was the aggressor or that the .illing was made in self3defense& There is no connection "etween the deceased@s drug addiction and thiever! with his violent death in the hands of accused3appellant& /n light of the positive e!ewitness testimon!# the claim that "ecause of the victim@s "ad character he could have "een .illed "! an! one of those from whom he had stolen# is pure and simple speculation& oreover# proof of the victim@s "ad moral character is not necessar! in cases of murder committed with treacher! and premeditation&
C#aacte o2 Accused and ictim 1ic#e!son vs. nited 'tates 33 ' 45( %&(48) Facts: The defendant is on trial for "ri"ing a federal revenue agent& The defendant called character witnesses and volunteered information that he was convicted of an offense twent! !ears ago& The character witnesses testified that the defendant had a good reputation for honest! and truthfulness& The defense was allowed to cross e*amine the witnesses and as.ed them whether the! were familiar with the fact that the defendant had "een arrested twent! seven !ears prior for receiving stolen goods& The court allowed the cross3e*amination and warned the jur! of the limited purpose of such testimon!& The defendant argued that he did not "ri"e the official and that this was a case of entrapment&
/ssue: hether a part! has the right to cross3e*amine another parties character witnesses and in(uire a"out past "ad acts such as arrests andGor convictionsH )eld: 6es& Arrest without more does not impeach the integrit! or impair the credi"ilit! of witness and hence onl! a conviction ma! "e in(uired a"out to undermine the trustworthiness of a witness& 'efore a character witness is cross3e*amined as to a prior arrest of the defendant# the prosecution should demonstrate privatel! to the court that it is not "ased on unsupported or untrue innuendo& Benerall!# the prosecution ma! not resort in its case in chief to an! .ind of evidence of defendants evil character# disposition# and reputation to esta"lish pro"a"ilit! of his guilt& )owever# when the defendant puts his reputation in issue# the entire su"ject is fair game and the prosecution ma! cross3e*amine the defendants character witnesses as to the contents and e*tent of the hearsa! on which the! "ase their conclusions& hen the defendant elects to initiate a character in(uir! commonl! called character evidence# the witness ma! not testif! a"out defendants specific acts or courses of conduct&
/n this case# the in(uir! concerned an arrest twent!3seven !ears "efore the trial& ;vents a generation old are li.el! to "e lived down and dropped from the present thought and tal. of the communit! and to "e a"sent from the .nowledge of !ounger or more recent ac(uaintances& 'ut# where defendant has put his reputation in issue "! the calling of character witnesses# he cannot complain at the latitude which is allowed the prosecution in meeting# "! cross3e*amination the issue thus voluntaril! tendered# notwithstanding the difficult! which the jur! ma! e*perience in comprehending the courts limiting instructions& nited 'tates vs. +i6on, 'noddy and *i!7et# . /d (8 / Decem7e &(8 Facts: The case is a reverse sting operation where"! Drug ;nforcement Agenc! 7D;A8 agents posed as sellers of a controlled su"stance& David Paige posed as a drug dealer for the D;A and used confidential informant to garner information a"out illicit drug dealing activit! "! the three defendants# Donal Bil"reth# David +nodd! and Arthur 0i*on& Although the confidential informats apparentl! thought of themselves as special federal agents# it seems that these three men were more at home with other criminals than with drug enforcement personnel& Their need for mone! is what motivated them to help Ema.e casesE for the government& /n other respects# the three C/s appeared to "e as lawless as an! con man or drug dealer&
/n a meeting with the defendants# 0i*on counter proposed a smaller deal "ut Paige acted surprised and upset& Paige# however# contends that his temper tantrum in the par.ing lot was simpl! an e*hi"ition consistent with his undercover role as a "ig3time drug smuggler& Paige testified that an! mention of possi"le violence "ecause of this new development was strictl! in regard to violence to himself "! Beorge# his "oss& The defendants were not threatened or intimidated& Thereafter# defendants were arrested& Defendants filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds of governmental overreaching& A pretrial hearing on the motion was held "ut the district judge opted to reserve her ruling until after hearing further evidence during the course of the trial& n the ,th da! of trial# after all e*cept the re"uttal evidence was in# the district court ruled against defendants on their motion to dismiss "ecause of government overreaching& The court found that neither the conduct of the government agents nor that of the confidential informants was sufficientl! outrageous to have violated defendants@ due process rights& The defendants contend that this was error and point to the lawless character of the confidential informants as well as the coercive tactics of the government agents in prodding the defendants into a drug deal that the! supposedl! wanted no part of& Distasteful as the tactics of the D;A agents ma! seem# our decision is governed "! certain legal standards peculiar to appellate review& Defendants attac. three alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct that prejudiced their defense& First# defendants maintain that the prosecutor lac.ed a good faith "asis for as.ing three defense character witnesses whether the! .new that defendants +nodd! and Bil"reth transported cocaine on a "us owned "! them& +econd# defendants claim that the prosecution intimidated a witness and pressured him to testif! on the government@s "ehalf& Third# defendants contend that the prosecutor made an improper closing argument& e will e*amine each contention in turn& n the ninth da! of trial defendants Bil"reth and +nodd! put on three character witnesses who had "usiness dealings with these two defendants& Two of the witnesses# +cott Ra! and illiam Phipps# "an. officers at the 'an. of e*ington and the +outhern 'an. of auderdale Count! respectivel!# .new defendants +nodd! and Bil"reth "ecause of certain loans ta.en out "! them through each of the "an.s& The third witness# Roger Pettus# was in the automo"ile "usiness "ut also had overlapping "usiness interests with defendants +nodd! and Bil"reth& ne of defendant Bil"reth@s "usinesses was the leasing of a customi%ed "us to traveling music stars& The
purchase of one particular "us was financed "! a purchase mone! loan from the 'an. of e*ington& +cott Ra!# an officer of the "an.# .new that the "us served as collateral for the loan "ut he did not .now an! specifics a"out the "us& illiam Phipps and Roger Pettus .new that one of Bil"reth@s "usinesses was the leasing of this "us to music stars "ut .new little else a"out it& n cross3e*amination of +cott Ra!# the prosecuting attorne! as.ed the witness whether he .new if the "us was Eused to transport large (uantities of cocaine&E Defense counsel reacted "! (uestioning the government@s good faith "asis for suggesting that fact to the jur!& The government intimated that it had a "asis in fact for as.ing the (uestion and that it would provide it to the court& Defense counsel did not o"ject when the government as.ed su"stantiall! the same (uestion of Roger Pettus and illiam Phipps& /ssue: hether or not there must "e good faith in pro"ing the witnesss familiarit! with the defendants& )eld: 6es& The Court noted the potential a"use in pro"ing a defense character witnesss familiarit! with the defendant has led to the imposition of two safeguards that should "e complied with "efore such (uestions ma! "e as.ed in the presence of a jur!& First# the alleged "ad act must have a "asis in fact and second# the incidents in(uired a"out must "e relevant to the character traits at issue in the trial& That does not mean that the "asis in fact must "e proved as a fact "efore a good faith in(uir! can "e made& 0onetheless# after hearing argument and evidence from "oth parties the district court found that the government had a good faith "asis for as.ing the (uestions&,= The court further found that even if the (uestions "ased on the photographs should not have "een as.ed# there was sufficient independent evidence of guilt to support the jur! verdict and the error# if an!# did not have a su"stantial adverse impact on the jur!@s verdict
nited 'tates vs. Jac9son Facts:
4( . 3d (53 & +ovem7e /008
David 1ac.son was sentenced to death for murder& )e appeals# arguing that 7,8 the district court refused to conduct a hearing to determine whether his due process rights were violated "! prosecutorial dela!9 78 the Federal Death Penalt! Act 7EFDPAE8 is unconstitutional9 78 the district court improperl! dismissed two jurors during voir dire9 748 the court allowed improper testimon!9 758 the court incorrectl! e*cluded certain pieces of evidence9 7>8 the court unconstitutionall! restricted counsel@s a"ilit! to o"ject9 7?8 the court erred "! not allowing 1ac.son to impeach a government witness with evidence of a prior conviction for se*ual assault9 7=8 the court incorrectl! allowed the government to impeach one of 1ac.son@s witnesses with a non3final conviction9 7<8 1ac.son should have "een allowed to allocute9 7,-8 the jur! should have "een instructed at sentencing that it could consider Eresidual dou"tsE a"out 1ac.son@s guilt9 7,,8 the verdict is inconsistent9 and 7,8 the district court incorrectl! denied a motion for new trial& 1ac.son# a federal prisoner# "egan arguing with another inmate# Dar!l 'rown# while a third inmate# Ar%ell Bulle!# watched& A fight "ro.e out# the details of which are disputed: 1ac.son claims that 'rown pulled out a shan.# , "ut the government contends that 'rown was unarmed and onl! attempted to "egin a fistfight& /n an! case# the confrontation culminated with all three running from the !ard where the argument started and through one of the prison units into a cell# where 1ac.son or Bulle! allegedl! held 'rown as the other attac.ed him with a shan.& After appro*imatel! thirt! seconds# 1ac.son and Bulle! left the cell wal.ing in opposite directions& 'rown# "leeding profusel!# collapsed and was soon pronounced dead&
1ac.son was apprehended with 'rown@s "lood on his clothes and an injur! to his palm consistent with recent use of a shan.& hile held "! securit!# he tried to flush gam"ling paraphernalia down the toilet& hen guards tried to place another inmate in the special housing unit with him# he allegedl! told officials that he would .ill the inmate if the inmate were not removed# sa!ing Eif !ou don@t "elieve me# loo. at the Isecurit!J tapes# /@ll .ill again&E At sentencing# the government presented evidence of 1ac.son@s other convictions# including multiple counts of armed ro""er! and various firearms charges# and testimon! a"out his poor disciplinar! record in prison& An e*pert witness for the government who had conducted ps!chiatric evaluations of 1ac.son testified that there was a high pro"a"ilit! that he would commit violent crimes in the future& 1ac.son presented evidence of a poor home life growing up# low intelligence# post3 traumatic stress disorder# and institutionali%ation& )e also noted that the government had not sought the death penalt! against Bulle!# and he su"mitted an apolog! he had written for his most recent armed ro""er!& 1ac.son also apologi%ed to 'rown@s famil!# though he "lamed 'rown for starting the fight& 1ac.son e*plained# E/ just wanted to sta" I'rownJ& / didn@t want to .ill him&E To demonstrate that he acted in self3defense# 1ac.son tried to introduce 'rown@s prison disciplinar! records into evidence& The district court "arred the evidence# ruling that it should "e admitted onl! if 1ac.son could prove that he had .nowledge of the specific acts descri"ed "! the records& 1ac.son contends that that ruling was improper and deprived him of the a"ilit! to present a complete defense& /ssue: hether or not the character evidence is admissi"le& )eld: 0o& 2nder Federal Rule of ;vidence 4-47a8# character evidence is generall! not admissi"le Efor the purpose of proving action in conformit! therewith on a particular occasion& & & &E The rules ma.e an e*ception# however# and permit the introduction of EIeJvidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered "! an accused& & & &E Federal Rule of ;vidence 4-5 provides that such a Etrait of characterE ma! alwa!s "e demonstrated to the jur! "! presenting evidence of the victim@s reputation& n the other hand# testimon! a"out Especific instances of conductE ma! "e used onl! if the Echaracter or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge# claim# or defense& & & &E The district court was correct to limit 1ac.son@s a"ilit! to present 'rown@s disciplinar! records& 'rown@s propensit! for violence is a pertinent trait of character# "ecause it supports 1ac.son@s argument that 'rown was the first aggressor& Accordingl!# the court allowed e*tensive testimon! on 'rown@s reputation in the prison communit!& The disciplinar! records that 1ac.son attempted to introduce# however# involved specific instances of conduct& 2nder rule 4-5# such evidence is admissi"le onl! if 'rown@s violent character was Ean essential element of I1ac.son@sJ defense&E /n Bulle!# addressing the same issue# the court held that 'rown@s prior specific acts were not admissi"le to prove his alleged propensit! for violence& First# as recogni%ed "! the +eventh# ;ighth# and 0inth Circuits# the plain language of Rule 4-57"8 limits the use of specific instances of conduct to prove essential elements of a charge or defense& +econd# 'rown@s character was not an essential element of the self3defense claim in the Estrict senseE "ecause a self3defense claim ma! "e proven regardless of whether the victim has a violent or passive character& f the three methods of proving character provided "! Irule 4-5J# evidence of specific instances of conduct is the most convincing& At the same time it possesses the greatest capacit! to arouse prejudice# to confuse# to surprise# and to consume time& Conse(uentl! the rule confines
the use of evidence of this .ind to cases in which character is# in the strict sense# in issue and hence deserving of a searching in(uir!& hen character is used circumstantiall! and hence occupies a lesser status in the case# proof ma! "e onl! "! reputation and opinion& These latter methods are also availa"le when character is in issue&
Evidence o2 $t#e ad Acts oyd vs. nited 'tates &4/ ' 40, &/ '. Ct. /(/ 4 Januay &8(/ Facts: The defendants were convicted of murder& /t was said that defendants 'o!d and +tandle! with 1ohn Davis# came to a ferr! on Cache Cree.# a short distance from artin '!rds house where 1ohn Dans"!# 1oseph '!rd and Richard 'utler were& The defendants and Davis called to the ferr!man artin '!rd to come and set them over the cree. "ut he protested contending that he did not li.e to do wor. of that .ind after dar. however# he finall! consented to get the .e! of the "oat and ta.e them across the cree. where he went to his house and returned with Dans"!# 1oseph '!rd and Richard 'utler# each with a weapon& hen the! reached the ferr! "oat and was a"out to unloc. the chain# Davis said to him to la! down the chain and throw out his rust! change& /t was then that Davis held a pistol upon '!rd and declared that it was his mone! the! were after& +hots were fired and as a result# Dans"! died&
At the trial# the principal witness for the prosecution at the trial was artin '!rd& hen presented as a witness# the defendants o"jected to him as incompetent "! reason of the fact that he had "een convicted of the crime of larcen! and sentenced to the penitentiar!# the record of such conviction "eing offered in support of the o"jection& The government thereupon produced a pardon from the President of the 2nited +tates& The principal assignments of error relate to the admission# against the o"jection of the defendants# of evidence as to several ro""eries committed prior to the da! when Dans"! was shot and which# or some of which at least# had no necessar! connection with# and did not in the slightest degree elucidate# the issue "efore the jur!& /ssue: hether or not evidence of several ro""eries against the defendants are admissi"le& )eld: 0o& The charge made no reference to the ro""eries committed upon 'rinson# ode# and )all# e*cept as the! ma! have "een in the mind of the court when it referred to Ethese other crimes&E hatever effect prejudicial to the defendants the proof of the ro""eries upon 'rinson# ode# and )all produced upon the minds of jurors remained with them e*cept as it ma! have "een modified "! the general statement that the defendants were not to "e convicted E"ecause of the commission of these other crimes&E The onl! other crimes referred to in the charge 7other than the alleged murder of Dans"!8 were the Rigs"! and Ta!lor ro""eries& The jurors were particularl! informed as to the purposes for which the court admitted testimon! in respect to those two ro""eries# "ut the! were left uninstructed in direct terms as to the use to which the proof of the 'rinson# ode# and )all ro""eries could "e put in passing upon the guilt or innocence of the particular crime for which the defendants were indicted& /t is true# as suggested "! counsel for the government that no e*ception was ta.en to the charge& 'ut o"jection was made "! the defendants to the evidence as to the 'rinson# ode# and )all ro""eries# and e*ception was dul! ta.en to the action of the court in admitting it& That e*ception was not waived "! a failure to e*cept to the charge& /f the evidence as to crimes committed "! the defendants other than the murder of Dans"! had "een limited to the ro""eries of Rigs"! and Ta!lor# it ma! "e# in view of the peculiar
circumstances disclosed "! the record and the specific directions "! the court as to the purpose for which the proof of those two ro""eries might "e considered# that the judgment would not "e distur"ed# although that proof# in the multiplied details of the facts connected with the Rigs"! and Ta!lor ro""eries# went "e!ond the o"jects for which it was allowed "! the court& 'ut the court was constrained to hold that the evidence as to the 'rinson# ode# and )all ro""eries was inadmissi"le for the identification of the defendants or for an! other purpose whatever# and that the injur! done the defendants in that regard was not cured "! an!thing contained in the charge& hether +tandle! ro""ed 'rinson and ode# and whether he and 'o!d ro""ed )all# were matters wholl! apart from the in(uir! as to the murder of Dans"!& The! were collateral to the issue to "e tried& 0o notice was given "! the indictment of the purpose of the government to introduce proof of them& The! afforded no legal presumption or inference as to the particular crime charged& Those ro""eries ma! have "een committed "! the defendants in arch# and !et the! ma! have "een innocent of the murder of Dans"! in April& Proof of them onl! tended to prejudice the defendants with the jurors# to draw their minds awa! from the real issue# and to produce the impression that the! were wretches whose lives were of no value to the communit! and who were not entitled to the full "enefit of the rules prescri"ed "! law for the trial of human "eings charged with crime involving the punishment of death& 2pon a careful scrutin! of the record# we are constrained to hold that in at least the particulars to which we have adverted# those rules were not o"served at the trial "elow& )owever depraved in character# and however full of crime their past lives ma! have "een# the defendants were entitled to "e tried upon competent evidence# and onl! for the offense charged& nited 'tates vs. Cunning#am &03 . 3d 3 /5 Decem7e /008 Facts: Constance Cunningham was sentenced to =4 months in prison after "eing convicted "! a jur! of tampering with a consumer product Ewith rec.less disregard for the ris. that another person will "e placed in danger of death or "odil! injur! and under circumstances manifesting e*treme indifference to such ris. Cunningham was a registered nurse at an /ndiana hospital& The hospital staff discovered that s!ringes containing the powerful pain.iller Demerol 7a "rand name for meperidine h!drochloridehad "een tampered with9 in some instances the Demerol had "een replaced with a saline solution& Cunningham was one of five nurses who# during a period when some of the s!ringes were .nown to have "een tampered with# had access to the loc.ed ca"inet in which the! were .ept&
All five nurses were interviewed "! the police and denied having tampered with the s!ringes& 'ut Cunningham ac.nowledged having once "een a Demerol addict& +he said the pro"lem was in the past and to prove this she offered to have her "lood and urine tested for Demerol& The "lood test was negative "ut the urine test positive# which was consistent with recent use# since Demerol remains in the urinar! tract longer than in the "loodstream& The government "elieves that Cunningham was stealing Demerol from the s!ringes in order to feed a Demerol addiction Cunningham argues that merel! withholding pain medication does not EplaceE an!one Ein danger of &&& "odil! injur!&E The statute defines E"odil! injur!E to include Eph!sical pain#E "ut she argues that failing to relieve pain is not the same as causing pain& +ince with the pain medication there is no 7or less8 pain# the withholding of the medication is a necessar! condition of pain9 "ut not all necessar! conditions are causes& )aving a nervous s!stem is a necessar! condition of e*periencing pain# "ut we would not ordinaril! sa! that having a nervous s!stem causes pain& Four !ears "efore the tampering# Cunningham had pleaded guilt! to stealing Demerol from the hospital at which she was then emplo!ed as a nurse under another name& )er nurse@s license had "een suspended# "ut it had later "een reinstated su"ject to several conditions
including that she su"mit to periodic drug testing& +he falsified the results of some of these tests& The judge sustained an o"jection to placing the conviction in evidence "ut allowed in the suspension of her license "ecause of her earlier theft of Demerol# the falsification of the test results# and the addiction that had led to the earlier theft and resulting suspension& /ssue: hether or not the evidence of other "ad acts of the accused is admissi"le& )eld: 6es& Rule 4-47"8 for"ids the introduction of evidence of a person@s prior conduct for the purpose of showing a propensit! to act in accordance with the character indicated "! that conduct& +o the fact that Cunningham had stolen Demerol in the past could not "e introduced to show that she is li.el! to have stolen Demerol in the present& 'ut evidence of prior conduct ma! "e introduced 7su"ject to the judge@s power to e*clude it under Rule 4- as undul! prejudicial# confusing# or merel! cumulative8 for other purposes# for e*ample to show the defendant@s motive for committing the crime with which he is charged& EPropensit!E evidence and EmotiveE evidence need not overlap& The! do not# for e*ample# when past drug convictions are used to show that the defendant in a ro""er! case is an addict and his addiction is offered as the motive for the ro""er!& The! do overlap when the crime is motivated "! a taste for engaging in that crime or a compulsion to engage in it 7an EaddictionE8# rather than "! a desire for pecuniar! gain or for some other advantage to which the crime is instrumental in the sense that it would not "e committed if the advantage could "e o"tained as easil! "! a lawful route& 0o special rule analogous to Rules 4, through 4,5 is necessar! to ma.e the evidence of the earlier crime admissi"le# "ecause 4-47"8 e*pressl! allows evidence of prior wrongful acts to esta"lish motive& The greater the overlap "etween propensit! and motive# the more careful the district judge must "e a"out admitting under the ru"ric of motive evidence that the jur! is li.el! to use instead as a "asis for inferring the defendant@s propensit!# his ha"itual criminalit!# even if instructed not to& 'ut the tool for preventing this a"use is Rule 4-# not Rule 4-47"8& e do not have a complete overlap "etween evidence of propensit! and evidence of motive in this case& ost people don@t want Demerol9 "eing a Demerol addict gave Cunningham a motive to tamper with the Demerol3filled s!ringes that# so far as appears# none of the other nurses who had access to the ca"inet in which the s!ringes were loc.ed had& 0o one suggests that an! of the five nurses might have wanted to steal Demerol in order to resell it rather than to consume it personall!& 'ecause Cunningham@s addiction was not to stealing Demerol "ut to consuming it# this case is li.e oreno# where the defendant@s se*ual fetish supplied the motive for his stealing women@s underwear# and cConnell# where the defendant@s drug addiction supplied the motive to ro"33he needed mone! to "u! drugs& Cunningham was in a position to steal her drug directl!& The evidence of her addiction was thus admissi"le# unless the judge decided that its prejudicial effect33the effect that is inherent in an! evidence that a jur!# however instructed# might use to draw the for"idden inference that once a thief alwa!s a thief33clearl! outweighed its pro"ative value& )e thought not# and we cannot sa! that this was an a"use of discretion& Remem"er that the judge e*cluded the evidence of Cunningham@s conviction& That evidence would have "een de trop# given the evidence of her addiction# which supplied the motive& hat is more# the evidence of the conviction would not have distinguished "etween the addiction that furnished a motive to steal# and a propensit! to steal33a nonaddict might steal drugs to resell them& The evidence of Cunningham@s suspension might seem to have "een similarl! superfluous and e(uivocal# as "eing merel! the civil e(uivalent of the criminal conviction that the judge
properl! e*cluded& 'ut the suspension# unli.e the conviction# did not merel! duplicate the evidence of Cunningham@s addiction or insinuate a propensit! to steal9 it also provided essential "ac.ground to the evidence of her having falsified the results of tests re(uired as a condition of regaining her license& That evidence furnished the "asis for an inference that she had falsified the test results in order to ena"le her to continue to feed her addiction without detection and without losing access to a EfreeE suppl! of the addictive su"stance# and so# li.e the addiction itself# esta"lished motive to tamper with the Demerol s!ringes& Branted# an alternative inference was that she had falsified the test results in order to "e a"le to wor. as a nurse& 'ut the jur! was entitled to choose "etween these inferences# rather than having the evidence from which the inference was to "e drawn withheld from them& ithout .nowing that she had "een suspended# the jur! would have wondered wh! she had "een tested and had falsified the test results& The admission of "ad3acts evidence to conte*tuali%e# and "! conte*tuali%ing ena"le the jur! to understand# other evidence is a recogni%ed e*ception to the prohi"ition of "ad3acts evidence& nited 'tates vs. *on;a!es &&0 . 3d (35 %&(() Facts: ;ste"an Bon%ale% 7EBon%ale%E8 and Alfredo Colon 7EColonE8 were convicted in the 2nited +tates District Court for the +outhern District of 0ew 6or. 7hitman Knapp# District 1udge 8 on 0ovem"er ,# ,<<4# following a jur! trial# of possessing a firearm after having "een previousl! convicted of a felon!# in violation of ,= 2&+&C& L <7g8
'oth defendants now appeal the judgment of conviction principall! on the grounds that: 7,8 The evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions9 78 ;vidence pertaining to an attempted "urglar! that occurred in close ph!sical pro*imit! to and immediatel! preceding the defendants@ apprehension was improperl! admitted9 78 +tatements made "! two police officers were improperl! withheld from defense counsel in violation of the government@s o"ligations "oth under the 1enc.s Act# ,= and 748 The jur! instructions with respect to the effect of stipulations on the jur!@s determination of each element of the crime were erroneous& The government# in a cross3appeal# contends that the district court erred in its sentencing of Bon%ale% "! downwardl! departing without providing an! permissi"le reason for doing so& For the foregoing reasons# we affirm the judgment of conviction entered against "oth defendants# and we vacate Bon%ale%@s sentence and remand for his resentencing& ff dut! police officer Thomas Crowe noticed herein appellants sitting in a white Chev! Corsica par.ed across the officers apartment& hen he went "ac. to his apartment# he noticed appellant Colon wal.ing alone down the street in the vicinit! +eated in his car# Crowe o"served Colon approach the door of Crowe@s apartment "uilding and then shrug his shoulders# as though lost or mista.en a"out the address& Then# as Crowe wal.ed toward his own apartment# he saw Colon wal. down one side of the street to the end of the "loc.# cross the street# and wal. up the other side& )is suspicions aroused# Crowe decided to monitor Colon@s activities from just inside the doorwa! to his "uilding& Crowe ne*t saw the same white Corsica he had seen earlier slowl! moving up his street# followed "! a red Chevrolet 'aretta& The lights were off on "oth cars& The cars pulled up to where Colon was standing under a street light across from Crowe@s apartment& ;milio and ;ste"an Bon%ale% got out of the two cars and all three men had an animated conversation that appeared to Crowe as though the! were discussing directions& After several minutes of this discussion# ;ste"an and ;milio Bon%ale% drove the two cars awa!# once again with their headlights off&
'elieving that the three were planning to steal a car# Crowe retrieved his off3dut! revolver and a cordless telephone from his apartment# and returned to his post at the doorwa!& )e ne*t saw Colon# still pacing up and down the street# joined "! ;ste"an Bon%ale%# who was now on foot& Crowe then watched the two men crouch "ehind a fence and appear to concentrate their attention on some near"! houses& As Crowe approached the sidewal. in front of his house# he saw "oth Bon%ale% and Colon draw guns and "egin to run in Crowe@s direction33the whole time loo.ing over their shoulders in the direction the! had "een facing while earlier crouching "! the fence& As the two men ran towards him# Crowe identified himself as a police officer and directed them to stop& ? The! did not stop& /nstead# Bon%ale% fired a shot at Crowe& Crowe returned fire# and then sought cover "ehind a par.ed car& Crowe then saw the two toss their weapons over a near"! hedge and run down the street# awa! from Crowe& Crowe gave chase and managed to apprehend Colon after a "rief struggle& Prior to trial# the government sought an in limine ruling from the district court permitting the government to introduce the testimon! of Beorge ascia descri"ing a "rea.3in and "urglar! attempt at his home# located around the corner from Crowe@s residence# at a"out the time of Crowe@s confrontation with the defendants& The district judge granted the government@s motion "ut limited the scope of ascia@s testimon!& ascia was permitted to testif! that he heard his alarm go off# saw a person clim"ing out of a window of his house# and was later una"le to identif! an! of the defendants as the intruder& Following the verdict# "oth defendants claimed that the district court@s error in allowing ascia to testif! warranted a new trial& Defendants argue that the evidence of the attempted "urglar! was irrelevant under Fed&R&;vid& 4-,9 unfairl! prejudicial under Fed&R&;vid& 4-9 and improperl! admitted e*trinsic evidence of a prior "ad act# in violation of Fed&R&;vid& 4-47"8& Defendants also argue that the error of admitting this evidence necessitates a new trial "ecause of the li.elihood that it unfairl! prejudiced the jur! "! Erousing the jur!@s hostilit! toward the defendants&E /ssue: hether or not the testimon! on the "ad act was admissi"le& )eld: 6es& To "e relevant# evidence need onl! tend to prove the government@s case# and evidence that adds conte*t and dimension to the government@s proof of the charges can have that tendenc!& Relevant evidence is not confined to that which directl! esta"lishes an element of the crime& As we have said: The trial court ma! admit evidence that does not directl! esta"lish an element of the offense charged# in order to provide "ac.ground for the events alleged in the indictment& 'ac.ground evidence ma! "e admitted to show# for e*ample# the circumstances surrounding the events or to furnish an e*planation of the understanding or intent with which certain acts were performed& The "urglar! evidence in this case was relevant "oth to a possi"le motive for the defendants@ possession of firearms and to provide crucial "ac.ground evidence that gave coherence to the "asic se(uence of events that occurred on the night of Fe"ruar! 4& ascia@s testimon! tended to add meaning to defendants@ activities "ecause it tended to show that Bon%ale% and Colon were functioning as armed loo.outs while ;milio Bon%ale% ro""ed ascia@s house& This theor! e*plained defendants@ patrolling activities and other "ehavior# including their animated discussions# their furtive crouching and apparent monitoring of goings3on on a near"! "loc.& And significantl!# evidence of a failed "urglar! offered an e*planation as to wh! Colon and Bon%ale% would have "een running down the street toward Crowe# with guns drawn# while loo.ing over their shoulders in the direction of ascia@s home& 'ased on the testimon! of ascia
and +apien%a# the government was a"le to argue that the time of defendants@ flight from the vicinit! of ascia@s home corresponded to the time that +apien%a@s patrol car arrived at ascia@s home to investigate the "rea.3in& The district judge acted within his discretion "! admitting ascia@s testimon! to e*plain defendants@ conduct once it was esta"lished that there was some "asis for "elieving that defendants had "een involved in the "urglar!& +uch a "asis plainl! e*isted: the events a"out which ascia would testif! 7as proffered "! the prosecutor outside of the jur!@s presence8 were sufficientl! corro"orated "! Crowe@s testimon! concerning his o"servations of Colon and Bon%ale% and "! the testimon! of +apien%a& Accordingl!# we find that the evidence of the near"! "urglar! was admissi"le as having the Etendenc! to ma.e the e*istence of an! fact that is of conse(uence to the determination of the action more pro"a"le &&& than it would "e without the evidence&E
Jones vs. 'tates 35, '.<., /d 84/ %&(54) Facts: The indictment alleged that the appellant too. mone! from the person and possession of D& & )ause without his .nowledge and without his consent# and with the intent to deprive him of its value and to appropriate it to her use and "enefit&
The indictment further alleged a prior conviction in the +tate of California for Brand Theft# and a conviction prior to the commission of that offense in the +tate of .lahoma for Brand arcen!& The prior convictions were proved as alleged& The state relied upon circumstantial evidence to show appellant@s guilt of theft of mone! from the person and possession of D& & )ause& )ause testified that on Decem"er ,# ,<># the appellant came to his auto parts place of "usiness around P&&# while he was wor.ing on a generator9 she gra""ed C& M& ells# who later "ecame a partner in the "usiness# and propositioned him for se*ual intercourse& +he had her hands all over him& )e pushed her awa!& +he then said she had to urinate and was shown an outside rest room& n the wa! of she fell# or claimed to have fallen# and )ouse# thin.ing she was drun.# tried to get her up& +he raised up her dress and gra""ed him& 'efore he could drag her out she turned around and ru""ed Eher rear endE on him& +he then said she had to use the telephone& )e did not see her again until she was arrested on arch ># ,<>& +ome five minutes after the appellant left# )ause reached for his hand.erchief and discovered that the N,5- or more he had in his "illfold was gone# "ut the "illfold was in his poc.et and the chec.s were still in it& C& M& ells gave similar testimon! to that of )ause& )e testified that he had no mone! in his "illfold and lost none& The theft of )ause@s mone! was promptl! reported to the police& The state was permitted to prove that the appellant# on arch ># ,<># went to an automo"ile service shop or Transmission +hop in Austin during the noon hour and# after announcing that she wanted to use the "athroom# gra""ed r& Brad!# the proprietor# and propositioned him and he Epushed her "ac. "ecause she was drun.&E +he gra""ed him again and then wal.ed out& All of this time r& Brad! was tal.ing on the telephone& )e discovered some ,5 minutes later that the N,5 he had in his "illfold was gone& A truc. driver for Travis aterials testified that the appellant went into the Transmission +hop and some 5 or ,- minutes later she came running "! his truc.# jumped in a "lac. Ford car par.ed a"out a "loc. and a half from the shop and Etoo. off& +he was throwing gravel and the car
was spinning and digging out when she left&E ater the same da! the appellant was apprehended near Ta!lor# Te*as# while driving such a car& The state was also permitted to introduce evidence to the effect that the appellant# on or a"out Decem"er ,# ,<># went to the place of "usiness of an rthopedic 'race Compan! where the proprietor# r& )ess# was at wor. at his "ench# put her hand on him li.e she was tr!ing to .eep from falling and acting Eas if she was tr!ing to solicit a street jo"#E and as though she was drugged or doped& +he then left suddenl! and the "race ma.er soon found that his "illfold# in which he had N- or more# was gone& The "illfold was later recovered# its contents other than the mone! was intact& Appellant was identified "! the witnesses as the person who came to each of the shops# propositioned the owner 7each of whom was married and living with his wife8# put her hand upon them# and left suddenl!# her departure "eing soon followed "! the discover! that the men@s mone! had li.ewise departed The evidence regarding the conduct of the appellant and the loss of mone! from the "illfold of r& )ess# the "race ma.er# and from the owner of the Transmission +hop was admitted over the o"jection that it was Eirrelevant and immaterial# highl! prejudicial& /t is at a time different and su"se(uent to the date alleged in the indictment of Decem"er the ,th&E /ssue: hether or not evidence was admissi"le& )eld: 6es& The evidence was offered and was admitted onl! for the purpose of showing identit!# intent# motive# malice or common plan or scheme& /t was so limited in the court@s charge and the jur! was instructed that such evidence could not "e considered for an! purpose unless the! "elieved "e!ond a reasona"le dou"t that the defendant committed such other offenses& The intent of the appellant in ma.ing ph!sical contact with r& )ause was material and was uncertain& Proof that the mone! was ta.en as well as the intent of the appellant rested upon the circumstances& The two collateral offenses show more than a similarit! in results& The! show a common plan and s!stematic course of action& The peculiar wa! in which the other "usiness men lost their mone! upon the same course of conduct "! the appellant was a circumstance that was availa"le to the state to prove the appellant@s guilt of theft from the person of )ause& The evidence O=44 showed s!stem# not merel! s!stematic crime# and the court did not err in admitting it for the limited purposes stated& Ehere the e*istence of a plan or s!stem of criminal action is in issue# evidence of other or similar offenses committed "! the accused# "oth "efore and after the commission of the offense with which he is charged# is admissi"le to show that the offense charged was part of a common plan# scheme# or s!stem& 'ut to render such evidence admissi"le# there must "e more than a certain degree of similarit! in results "etween the crime with which he is charged and the other crimes committed "! him& There must indeed "e such a concurrence of common features "etween the several crimes as will show logicall! that all of them might well have resulted from a common plan or s!stematic course of action&E The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and no error appears&
nited 'tates vs. Jones 4 . 3d 800 & August /005 Facts: After a jur! trial# Keefer 1ones was found guilt! of possession with intent to distri"ute five or more grams of cocaine "ase the district court sentenced r& 1ones to > months@ imprisonment and eight !ears@ supervised release and ordered him to pa! a N,-- special assessment& r& 1ones now appeals his conviction and sentence&
/n preparation for e*ecuting a search warrant of a residence# several Decatur Police officers were performing surveillance of that residence at <4- 0orth ain +treet in Decatur# /llinois& During that time# Detective 1ason 'oesdorfer o"served three "lac. males# including r& 1ones# coming and going from the residence& At appro*imatel! =:- p&m&# r& 1ones and his nephew ontae 1ones left the home# got into a car and drove awa!& Detective orne +turdivant followed and o"served the car# driven "! r& 1ones# ma.e a left turn without signaling& Detective +turdivant then ordered r& 1ones to pull the car to the cur"& r& 1ones was arrested for driving with a suspended license and ta.en to the Decatur police station& eanwhile# other police officers# including Detectives David Daile! and Chad Rame!# "egan the search of <4- 0orth ain +treet& The! found a plastic "ag containing seventeen roc.s of crac.& /n the "edroom# the! found a )ardee@s "ag hidden in a radiator& /nside that "ag were four plastic "ags9 two contained cash totaling appro*imatel! N,#?--9 the other two contained appro*imatel! ,?5 roc.s of crac. cocaine& The crac. in each "ag weighed over five grams& After the search was completed# Detective Rame! left the house and returned to the Decatur police station# where he advised r& 1ones of his iranda rights& According to Detective Rame!# r& 1ones signed a iranda form indicating that he understood his rights& Detective Rame! testified at trial that# after signing this form# r& 1ones told him that he had moved to <4 0orth ain +treet a"out a month earlier and that the duffel "ag "elonged to him& r& 1ones also admitted to the Detective that he had "een selling crac. from the house during the previous two or three wee.s and that the crac. in the dresser and )ardee@s "ag "elonged to him& )e further stated that the N,#?-- in the )ardee@s "ag was mone! that he had made selling crac. during the previous two da!s& Detective Rame! then as.ed r& 1ones to draft a written confession& r& 1ones complied& A criminal complaint was issued that charged r& 1ones with possessing crac. with intent to distri"ute& A warrant was issued for his arrest& The criminal complaint was supported "! an affidavit written "! F'/ Agent arren who summari%ed the search of <4- 0orth ain +treet and noted that r& 1ones had made a Ewritten statementE confessing to dealing drugs& The te*t of this statement was included in the affidavit& n April 5# --# r& 1ones was indicted "! a grand jur! and charged with .nowingl! and intentionall! possessing with intent to distri"ute five or more grams of crac. cocaine& r& 1ones testified on his own "ehalf& )e denied living at <4- 0orth ain +treet# denied ma.ing either an oral or a written statement to Detective Rame! and denied that an! of the crac. cocaine found in the apartment had "elonged to him& )e admitted that he had a ,<<4 conviction for selling cocaine# "ut testified that he had Eprett! muchE forgotten how to sell drugs since that conviction& The court admitted his ,<<4 conviction into evidence& r& 1ones had filed a motion in limine re(uesting that his prior conviction not "e entered into evidence& )e contended that the conviction was Enot relevant to proving an! fact in issue other than his propensit! to commit the crime charged#E that it was too remote in time to "e admissi"le and that an! pro"ative value would "e outweighed "! the prejudice that it would cause him& /n response# the Bovernment argued that the prior conviction was admissi"le to that show r& 1ones possessed the intent to distri"ute the crac. "ecause possession with intent to distri"ute is a specific intent crime& /ssue: hether or not the ,<<4 conviction is admissi"le as evidence& )eld: 6es& /n assessing this issue# the district court emplo!ed the four3part test set forth a"ove and discussed each part of that test in reaching the conclusion that the ,<<4 conviction was admissi"le& As to the first prong# the district court stated that Eit is proper to admit this evidence
on the issue of intent& Turning to the second prong# the district court held that an eight3!ear3old conviction is not too old to "e admissi"le& /t relied upon 2nited +tates v& Tringali# which upheld the admission of a nine3!ear3old conviction& The district court further held that# under the fourth prong# the conviction was not more prejudicial than pro"ative& 0evertheless# the court agreed to give a cautionar! instruction to the jur!& First# the court must determine whether evidence of the previous conviction was relevant and pro"ative on the issue of intent& The most o"vious justifia"le situation in which prior convictions are admissi"le in drug prosecutions on the issue of intent are in those situations in which the defendant# while admitting possession of the su"stance# denies the intent to distri"ute it& Accordingl!# it certainl! was in the sound discretion of the district court to determine# given the facts and circumstances presented "! this case# that this evidence was relevant and pro"ative on the issues placed into contention "! r& 1ones The court also have held that a prior conviction for distri"ution of crac. is admissi"le in a case where the charged act involves distri"ution of cocaine# as the distinction "etween the two drugs is a Edistinction without su"stanceE as E "oth crimes involve the possession with intent to distri"ute a chemical composition of cocaine&E nited 'tates vs,
( . /d
&3/3
Facts: Ro"ert +m!th ales entered the 2nited +tates at )onolulu /nternational Airport on a flight which he "oarded in +ingapore& )e chec.ed the EnoE "o* on a customs declaration form to den! that he was carr!ing more than N,-#---& Customs agents found he was carr!ing N4=#---& )e was arrested and charged with .nowingl! and willfull! ma.ing a false statement on a customs declaration form he gave to an officer of the 2nited +tates Customs +ervice# in violation of ,= 2&+&C& L ,--,& A jur! found him guilt!& n appeal# ales contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and the district court erred in several evidentiar! rulings& )e also challenges his sentence# contending that he is entitled to "e resentenced under the amendment to 2&+&+&B& The N4=#--- in 2&+& currenc! ales was carr!ing was almost five times the N,-#--- limit for disclosure purposes& The mone! was pac.aged in three separate envelopes# each from the hotel in +ingapore that ales had left that morning& Two of the envelopes were pac.ed in different parts of ales@s luggage& The third he carried in the "reast poc.et of his jac.et& hen he filled out his customs declaration form# ales completed it accuratel! in full# e*cept onl! for chec.ing the EnoE "o* in response to the printed statement: E/ am carr!ing currenc! or monetar! instruments over N,-#--- 2&+& or foreign currenc!&E The inspector then found all the envelopes of ales& Miewing the evidence in the light most favora"le to the government# a reasona"le jur! could have found that ales .new he was "ringing more than N,-#--- in 2&+& currenc! into this countr! and .nowingl! and willfull! stated on his customs declaration form that he was not& Defendant@s oral EnoE response and his continued reluctance to let inspectors .now that he was carr!ing over N5#--- in his "riefcase supported trial court@s conclusion that he acted .nowingl! and willfull!& ales argues the district court erred in permitting a government witness to testif! that at the time of ales@s arrest he had in his suitcase an e*pired California driver@s license issued in the name of Earr! David A""ottE with his picture on it# and a Canadian driver@s license issued in the name ERo"ert +anders&E As the district court found# ales@s counsel opened the door to this testimon! a"out the false drivers@ licenses when he elicited testimon! on cross3e*amination that various documents which ales was carr!ing on his person and which were in his "riefcase at the time of his arrest were Eall legitimateE and in ales@s name& Defense counsel Eopened the
doorE to redirect testimon! that onl! N#--- remained in defendant@s "an. account on a! ,# ,<=># "! introducing cross3e*amination evidence creating a false impression that defendant retained in her "an. account funds under investigation until 1une <# ,<=>& /ssue: hether or not evidence against defendant was admissi"le&
)eld: 6es& ales argues the district court erred "! permitting a government witness# on redirect e*amination# to testif! that most travelers who are told that the! chec.ed the wrong "o* regarding possession of currenc! act (uic.l! to correct the error and present their mone!& During cross3e*amination of the witness# ales@s counsel elicited testimon! to the effect that most people arriving in the earl! morning after traveling long distances appear confused& '! this line of in(uir! he attempted to portra! ales as a t!pical wear! traveler& /n doing so# he opened the door to permit the government# on redirect# to show that ales@s "ehavior and reactions differed from the t!pical earl!3morning passenger& Drug courier profile testimon! admissi"le "ecause defense counsel attempted to raise an inference that defendant was not a drug courier "! showing that his life3st!le was inconsistent with that line of "usiness&
Evidence o2 $t#e ad Acts in 'e6ua! Assau!t Cases nited 'tates vs. e Compte
&3& . 3d 5 // Decem7e &((
Facts: 'efore the trial of eo eCompte for the alleged se*ual a"use of his wife@s ,,3!ear3old niece# Ethe defendant moved in limine to e*clude evidence of prior uncharged se* offenses against another niece "! marriage# ET&T&E The government argued that the evidence was admissi"le under Federal Rule of ;vidence 4,4 7;vidence of +imilar Crimes in Child olestation Cases8& The District Court e*cluded the evidence under Rule 4-& According to the victim C&D&# prior to 1anuar! ,<<5# eCompte had pla!ed games with her at her aunt@s trailer and had e*posed himself to her on at least one occasion& The actual incidents of molestation allegedl! occurred while she was l!ing on a couch at her aunt@s# with her si"lings sleeping on the floor ne*t to her& eCompte allegedl! joined her on the couch# forced her to touch his penis# and touched her "reasts& The government offered evidence of se* offenses committed "! eCompte against a niece of his first wife during that marriage# "etween ,<=5 and ,<=?& This niece# T&T&# would testif! that eCompte had pla!ed games with her at her aunt@s house# had e*posed himself to her# had forced her to touch his penis# and had touched her private parts& The admissi"ilit! of T&T&@s testimon! has "een considered "! this Court once "efore& /n eCompte@s first trial# the government offered the evidence under Rule 4-47"8& /t was not then a"le to offer the evidence under Rule 4,4 "ecause of its failure to provide timel! notice of the offer# as re(uired "! Rule 4,4& The District Court admitted the evidence# and the jur! convicted eCompte& n appeal# this Court held that the District Court@s admission of the evidence under Rule 4-47"8 was improper# and reversed eCompte@s conviction& /ssue: hether or not T&T&s testimon! is admissi"le&
)eld: 0o& The District Court ruled that T&T&@s testimon! was potentiall! admissi"le under Rule 4,4# "ut e*cluded "! Rule 4-& /t noted that although the evidence@s onl! relevance was as to eCompte@s propensit! to commit child se*ual a"use# Rule 4,4 e*pressl! allowed its use on that "asis& The Court then turned to a Rule 4- anal!sis of the evidence& As to the evidence@s pro"ative value# the Court recogni%ed the similarities "etween C&D&@s and T&T&@s accounts: the! were "oth !oung nieces of eCompte at the time he molested them# he forced them "oth to touch him# he touched them "oth in similar places# and he e*posed himself to "oth of them& The Court found that the evidence@s pro"ative value was limited# however# "! several differences& First# the acts allegedl! committed against C&D& occurred with her si"lings present# while the acts against T&T& occurred in isolation& +econd# eCompte had not pla!ed games with C&D& immediatel! "efore molesting her# as he had with T&T& Finall!# the acts against C&D& and T&T& were separated "! a period of eight !ears& The District Court concluded that the pro"ative value of T&T&@s testimon! was limited& n the other hand# it found that the ris. of unfair prejudice was high# reasoning that ET&T&@s testimon! is o"viousl! highl! prejudicial evidence against defendant &&&& @child se*ual a"use deservedl! carries a uni(ue stigma in our societ!9 such highl! prejudicial evidence should therefore carr! a ver! high degree of pro"ative value if it is to "e admitted&@ The Court therefore e*cluded the evidence under Rule 4-& Rule 4,4 provides in relevant part: 7a8 /n a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of child molestation# evidence of the defendant@s commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation is admissi"le# and ma! "e considered for its "earing on an! matter to which it is relevant& Rule 4,4 and its companion rules33Rule 4, 7;vidence of +imilar Crimes in +e*ual Assault Cases8# and Rule 4,5 7;vidence of +imilar Acts in Civil Cases Concerning +e*ual Assault or olestation833are Egeneral rules of admissi"ilit! in se*ual assault and child molestation cases for evidence that the defendant has committed offenses of the same t!pe on other occasions&&&& The new rules will supersede in se* offense cases the restrictive aspects of Federal Rule of ;vidence 4-47"8&E
Dec!aation Against edigee *avado vs. 1amigo /0 'CRA 4/, *R -/4(8(
Facts: Petitioner Pedro Bravador was the principal of the +ta& Catalina ;lementar! +chool in +ta& Catalina# 0egros riental on August ,5# ,<>4 when he was advised "! the then# +uperintendent of +chools Angel +ala%ar# 1r&# through the respondent +upervisor Teodulfo ;& Da!ao# of his separation from the service on the ground that he had reached the compulsor! retirement age of >5& A few da!s later the respondent ;uti(uio amigo was designated teacher3 in3charge of the said elementar! school& n August ,# ,<>4 the petitioner wrote the Director of Pu"lic +chools# protesting his forced retirement on the ground that the date of his "irth is not 0ovem"er ># ,=# ,<># of a%aro 'ando(uillo and Pedro A& +ienes "oth of Amlan 0egros riental# in which these two affiants declared that the! .new that the petitioner Ewas "orn on Decem"er ,,# ,<-,# in the unicipalit! of Amlan formerl! .nown as 0ew A!u(uitan Province of 0egros riental# PhilippinesE "ecause#
Ewe were the neigh"ors of the late spouses# 0;P2C;0 BRAMADR and AB2;DA R;BR+A Ipetitioner@s parentsJ# and we were present when said P;DR BRAMADR was "orn9 furthermore#we were also invited during the "aptismal part! a few wee.s after the "irth of said P;DR BRAMADR&E The controvers! on the petitioner@s date of "irth arose as a result of the conflicting records of the Division of +chools of 0egros riental& n the one hand the pre3war records show his date of "irth to "e 0ovem"er ># ,=> !ears# = months and da!s on August ,5# ,<>4& n the other hand# the post3war records# consisting of an ;lementar! Teacher@s Report Card# an ;mplo!ee@s Record Card# and an ;mplo!ee@s Record of $ualifications# state that the petitioner was "orn on Dec& ,,# ,<-,& These are the records on which the petitioner "ases his claim& The pro"lem is aggravated "! two uncontroverted facts# namel!# that the records of the church where the petitioner was "apti%ed were destro!ed "! fire# and that the municipal civil register contains no record of the petitioner@s "irth& According to the trial court# the post3war records were intended to replace the pre3war records and therefore the correct date of "irth of the petitioner is Decem"er ,,# ,<-,& The court also too. into account the verified answer in a cadastral proceeding in the Court of First /nstance of 0egros riental# dated arch ,5# ,<4# filed "! the petitioner@s "rother# Romulo Bravador# now deceased& /t is therein stated that the petitioner# said to "e one of the co3owners of a piece of land# was at the time !ears old& The respondents now contend that the trial court erred in placing full reliance on the post3 war records to esta"lish the date of "irth 7Decem"er ,,# ,<-,8 of the petitioner& The! argue that these records were made onl! "ecause it was thought that the pre3war records had "een lost or destro!ed# "ut as some pre3war records had since "een located# the date contained in the pre3war records should "e regarded as controlling and that the finding of the +uperintendent of +chools that the petitioner was "orn on 0ovem"er ># ,= and again in ,<>- when he as.ed the Bovernment +ervice /nsurance +!stem and the Civil +ervice Commission to correct the date of his "irth to Decem"er ,,# ,<-,& /n the second place# the import of the declaration of the petitioner@s "rother# contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral case wa! "ac. in ,<4# to the effect that the petitioner was then !ears old# cannot "e ignored& ade ante litem motam "! a deceased relative# this statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and meaning of section of Rule ,- of the Rules of Court& Thus# Decem"er ,,# ,<-, is esta"lished as the date of "irth of the petitioner not onl! "! evidence of famil! tradition "ut also "! the declaration ante litem motam of a deceased relative&
Finall!# the parties agreed that the petitioner has a "rother# Constantino# who was "orn on 1une ,-# ,=<= and who retired on 1une ,-# ,<> with full retirement pa!& The petitioner then could not have "een "orn earlier than Constantino# sa! in ,=
