USA v. Juan Santiago, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-40005 Affirmed] Judge: RHB , Judge: JLD , Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 12/08/2010 for Appellant Juan Diego Santiago Jr. [10-40005]

USA v. Juan Santiago, Jr. : 10-40005 Case

Document: 00511296437 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-40005 S u m m a r y Calendar November 17, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t iff - Appellee v. J U A N DIEGO SANTIAGO, JR., D e fe n d a n t - Appellant

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 1:09-CR-641-1

B e fo r e BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* J u a n Diego Santiago, Jr., appeals his jury-trial convictions for conspiring t o bring in and transport an illegal alien, within the United States, and tr a n s p o r t in g an illegal alien, within the United States, for private financial gain. At trial, the district court permitted the Government to offer evidence, pursuant t o Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), of Santiago's prior conviction for aiding and a b e t tin g undocumented aliens, as proof of his intent to commit the charged c r im e s . His prior offense was nearly identical to the crimes of conviction. For
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-40005 Document: 00511296437 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2010 No. 10-40005 a ll offenses, Santiago transported undocumented aliens in a vehicle not r e g is t e r e d to Santiago, and explained to Border Patrol Agents that he was u n a w a r e of their undocumented status and picked them up at a service station b e c a u s e they needed a ride. Santiago contends: the district court erred in a d m it t in g the prior-crime evidence because its probative value was substantially o u tw e ig h e d by the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. B e c a u s e Santiago made a timely objection to the district court's e v id e n t ia r y ruling, we review for abuse of discretion. A Rule 404(b) ruling is s u b je c t to heightened review, requiring the evidence be strictly relevant to the p a r tic u la r offense charged. See United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 8 6 3 , 869 (5th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 831 (5 t h Cir. 1995). Rule 404(b) precludes the admission of "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, o r acts . . . to prove the character of a person in order to show action in c o n fo r m it y therewith". FED. R. EVID. 404(b). "It may, however, be admissible for o t h e r purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, k n o w le d g e , identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . ." Id. In assessing the a d m is s ib ilit y of evidence under Rule 404(b), we ask whether: (1) the extrinsico ffe n s e evidence is relevant to an issue other than Santiago's character; and (2) t h e probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger o f unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. See United S ta te s v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 863, 870 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing United S ta te s v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc)). Applying this two-step inquiry, the prior-crime evidence was highly r e le v a n t to an issue other than Santiago's character; it tended to show he p o s s e s s e d the requisite intent for the crime charged. The only other evidence r e g a r d in g Santiago's intent to transport illegal aliens was the testimony of the w o m a n he transported, who initially testified Santiago had no knowledge of her 2

Case: 10-40005 Document: 00511296437 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2010 No. 10-40005 u n d o c u m e n te d status. Because of the lack of evidence available to establish S an tia g o 's unlawful intent, and the degree of similarity between the charged and e x t r in s ic offenses, the extrinsic-offense evidence was highly probative of S a n t ia g o 's intent. See United States v. McMahon, 592 F.2d 871, 875 (5th Cir. 1 9 7 9 ). As to the second prong, the probative value of the extrinsic-offense e v id e n c e was not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice. The prior o ffe n s e was not of a heinous nature, and it did not constitute cumulative e v id e n c e , confuse the issues, mislead the jury, or cause undue delay. See id. at 8 7 6 . Moreover, any danger of unfair prejudice was minimized by the district c o u r t's appropriate limiting instruction to the jury. See id. A F F IR M E D .

3