Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04025/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Brito
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 0 1990 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOSE BRITO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-4025 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-0115J) 

(D. Utah) 

Before McKAY, LOGAN, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Jose Brito appeals his conviction on two counts of 

aiding and abetting the distribution of controlled substances in 

violation of 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal 

he argues that: (1) the district court improperly limited crossexamination of a government witness, and (2) there was 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-4025 Document: 01019971528 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 1 
insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm. 

I 

Defendant contends that the district court improperly limited 

cross-examination of Hans Berrios, a confidential government 

informant, concerning the details of pending or potential criminal 

charges against Berrios involving the illegal importation of 

vehicles from Mexico. The district court limited crossexamination to any agreement between the witness and the 

government concerning these charges, II R. 27-28, and defense 

counsel elicited an admission from the witness that he expected 

pending or potential charges to be dropped because of his 

cooperation with the government, II R. 30-31. 

Because the district court did not preclude all inquiry into 

this relevant area of cross-examination, we can reverse only if 

the district court's limits on the extent of the cross-examination 

constituted an abuse of discretion clearly prejudicial to the 

defendant. See United States v. Atwell, 766 F.2d 416, 419-20 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 921 (1985). We have carefully 

reviewed the cross-examination of Berrios and can find no abuse of 

discretion by the distrit court. Defense counsel was allowed to 

fully explore the bias inherent in Berrios' testimony for the 

govenment at a time when criminal charges could have been filed 

against him. II R. 23-32. 

II 

Defendant also contends that there was insufficient evidence 

for the district court, as fact finder, to conclude that he was 

guilty of aiding and abetting the distribution of controlled 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-4025 Document: 01019971528 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 2 
substances. The transaction at issue involved a sale to Berrios 

of cocaine and what was represented to be heroin but was in fact 

decomposed heroin, or morphine. 

recorded on audio and videotape. 

The entire transaction was 

Defendant's brother, Lucio 

Brito, and his cousin, Santos Tapia, were convicted for their 

involvement in this sale, and at trial, defendant contended that 

he was an innocent bystander, without any prior knowledge that a 

drug transaction was going to take place. 

A person aids and abets the commission of a crime by active 

participation which assists the perpetration of the crime. United 

States v. Sacks, 620 F.2d 239, 241 (10th Cir. 1980). Defendant 

admitted knowing that a drug transaction was taking place. II R. 

180. A knowing spectator is not an aider and abetter, but even 

oral communication can constitute active participation if it is 

calculated to assist in completing the crime. Sacks, 620 F.2d at 

241. In this case, there was sufficient evidence for the district 

court to conclude that defendant was more than a knowing spectator 

to the drug sale. Defendant drove his brother and cousin to the 

site of the sale. II R. 33-35. Defendant unwrapped a tape ball 

which contained the purported heroin. II R. 180-81. Defendant 

told Berrios that it was not necessary to weigh the drugs. II R. 

183. When the drugs were in fact being weighed, defendant offered 

advice on the weighing. II R. 185. And defendant offered to let 

his brother store the remaining cocaine at his house, where others 

could purchase it. II R. 189. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-4025 Document: 01019971528 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 3