Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02307/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02307-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Asuncion Madrid-Torres
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

I 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Uoited States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. No. 89-2307 

JOSE ASUNCION MADRID-TORRES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. CR-89-00244-1-JP) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

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 Asuncion Madrid-Torres appeals his conviction 

by a jury for possession of more than fifty kilograms of marijuana 

with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 u.s.c. SS 841(a)(l) 

* 

be 

for 

res 

** 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

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

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

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

The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sittinng by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2307 Document: 010110099899 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 1 
and (b)(l)(C). The only issue on appeal is whether the district 

court erred in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on 

the prosecution's alleged violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. 

The border patrol officer who stopped defendant at a check 

point and discovered marijuana in his vehicle testified at trial 

that defendant told him, at the time of the stop, that he had 

picked up a passenger in El Paso, Texas. It is undisputed that 

defendant had a woman passenger, his cousin, in the vehicle at the 

time he was stopped. The officer's testimony concerning the 

passenger was not in his report given to defense counsel pursuant 

to Rule 16 discovery. The officer stated that it was not included 

because he did not think it was particularly significant. Upon 

. hearing this, defendant asked for a mistrial on the ground that 

the government failed to comply with the Rule 16 requirement that 

oral statements of adverse witnesses be revealed. Defendant 

argued that this suprise statement was inconsistent with his 

theory of the case and that a mistrial was the only effective 

remedy. The district court considered the matter and found the 

prosecution did not violate the Rule 16 discovery order. The 

court also found that even if there was a Rule 16 violation 

prejudice to the defendant was "very little if any," III R. 114, 

and it denied a mistrial. The court did, however, order the 

government not to use or further pursue the officer's statement 

during the trial, an admonition that was obeyed. 

We have examined the situation in the context of the record 

and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying a mistrial. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2307 Document: 010110099899 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 2 
AFFIRMED • . 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2307 Document: 010110099899 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 3