USA v. Fletcher
Filing
920070215
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30622 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARL FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:05-CR-50082 -------------------Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carl Fletcher was found guilty on a single-count indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. As
his sole argument on appeal, Fletcher argues that the jury heard the testimony concerning the nature of his prior felony drug conviction in violation of the holding in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997). We review the district court's United States v.
evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456, 464 (5th Cir. 2004).
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
No. 06-30622 -2Under Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 174, a district court abuses its discretion if it admits the name or nature of a stipulated prior conviction when such is offered solely to prove the prior-conviction element of the offense, and its introduction raises a risk of a verdict tainted by improper considerations. The instant case is distinguishable from Old Chief because the Government did not seek to introduce evidence of the prior conviction "solely" to prove the prior-conviction element of the offense. Rather, the Government elicited the testimony in order
to establish that Williams might have a bias in favor of Fletcher. testimony. 1997). The potential bias of a witness is always relevant United States v. Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir.
As in the instant case, evidence of bias may include
testimony concerning the prior history between a witness and a defendant where the history establishes a possible motive for slanted testimony. See, e.g., id. The district court did not See Insaulgarat,
abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony. 378 F.3d at 464. AFFIRMED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?