Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02240/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02240-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Concepcion Dominguez-Alparo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L D 

United States Co .L 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CONCEPCION DOMINGUEZ-ALFARO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) (D. C. 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tenth cf::c;J{ AP.Pealt 

MAR 1 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOEcrr-r:,.R Clerk -~ 

No. 90-2240 

No. CR-89-427-01 JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, 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. ~ Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Concepcion Dominguez-Alparo appeals her conviction for 

importation of more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and possession 

with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) (1) and (b) (1) (B) and 960 (b) (2). 

* 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: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 1 
She raises one issue on appeal: "Whether [she] was prejudiced at 

trial by joinder with codefendant Victor Santos Huerta to the 

extent that a severance should have been granted as a matter of 

law." Appellant's Brief at 2. We affirm. 

The parties presented the following evidence at trial. 

Dominguez-Alparo, along with passenger codefendant San Juana Maese 

De Amaro, entered a checkpoint in New Mexico driving a white Ford 

pickup truck. At the checkpoint, Border Patrol Agent Manuel 

Padilla, Jr. asked to see identification showing citizenship. 

Dominguez-Alparo produced an I-94 immigration document with a poor 

quality picture. Due to the poor picture, Agent Padilla directed 

the two to the secondary inspection area of the checkpoint, where 

he asked Dominguez-Alparo additional questions about the I-94. 

She was extremely nervous, and she stuttered and avoided eye 

contact. She and Maese had only one light bag with them. Agent 

Padilla asked Dominguez-Alparo where they were going. He 

testified that she said they were going to Albuquerque to fix her 

sick aunt's papers. He believed she was referring to immigration 

papers. 

Agent Padilla visually inspected the truck and noticed 

marijuana in the truck bed. He asked for and received permission 

to inspect the truck with a drug sniffing dog. The dog alerted to 

the bed of the truck. The truck had a secret compartment holding 

236 pounds of marijuana. 

Border Patrol Agent Arturo Rocha, Jr. and Agent Padilla 

arrested Dominguez-Alparo and Maese. Agent Rocha drove the truck 

and Dominguez-Alparo to the Border Patrol station in Las Cruces. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 2 
on the trip to Las Cruces, she told Agent Rocha that she had 

bought the truck a few days earlier, she had driven the truck from 

Juarez to El Paso the day before, and in El Paso at an inspection 

area, a drug sniffing dog had not alerted. She also told Agent 

Rocha that she was going to Albuquerque to meet the seller of the 

truck, 

title. 

that 

whose name she could not remember, to obtain the truck 

Upon reaching Las Cruces, Agent Rocha found no indication 

Dominguez-Alparo had passed through a checkpoint in El Paso 

from Mexico. 

Huerta, later coming forward on his own initiative, gave both 

oral and written statements to Border Patrol Agent Alvin Evenson 

indicating that he had tricked Dominguez-Alparo into transporting 

the marijuana. According to his written statement, which was 

admitted as evidence, he sold her the truck in order to get her to 

take the truck to Albuquerque, where he intended to reclaim 

possession of the truck and return her down payment money. 

Orally, he also told Agent Evenson that he had obtained the drugs 

in Mexico. He stated that he had followed Dominguez-Alparo to the 

checkpoint, but he had quickly departed when he saw her and Maese 

being arrested. 

Huerta indicated that he would enter a guilty plea in order 

that the charges against Dominguez-Alparo and Maese could be 

dropped . Sometime after giving the statement, Huerta advised his 

attorney that he would not plead guilty because he had not been 

paid the $60,000 Dorninguez -Alparo had promised him for taking the 

responsibility. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 3 
At the joint trial, Huerta testified that although he had 

previously served time in jail for transporting marijuana, he had 

no role with regard to this marijuana. Dominguez-Alparo, 

according to his testimony, agreed to pay him $60,000 plus 

attorney's fees and bonds for pleading guilty. She paid him part 

of the money, gave him and his wife drugs to support their habits, 

gave them a car and apartment to use, and bought Huerta new 

clothing. Dominguez-Alparo coached him before he gave his 

statement to Agent Evenson. Huerta also testified that 

Dominguez-Alparo had nice possessions despite being on welfare. 

In sununary, Huerta defended himself by asserting that 

Dominguez-Alparo was solely responsible for transporting the 

marijuana and that she had offered him money to take 

responsibility for her. Dominguez-Alparo, however, defended 

herself by asserting that Huerta tricked her into transporting the 

marijuana and then offered her money to conceal his involvement . 

She testified that she bought the truck from Huerta the day 

before she was arrested and that she was traveling to Albuquerque 

to pick up the truck papers from him. She stated that she had 

thrown away the map to the house in Albuquerque of the owner of 

the truck, where she was to pick up the papers. She also 

testified that she had no knowledge of the secret compartment or 

marijuana. She had her suspicions about whether the truck was 

stolen when she noticed a black truck enter the checkpoint area. 

At that time, she became nervous because she did not have the 

title to the truck. She denied telling Agent Padilla she was 

going to Albuquerque to fix her sick aunt' s papers and admitted 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 4 
she had lied about crossing from Mexico to El Paso with the truck. 

She testified Huerta asked her to plead guilty for $10,000, so 

that neither he nor his mother would be implicated. She denied 

promising Huerta money for pleading guilty. She claimed he and 

his wife took her car and broke into her apartment. 

The jury found Dominguez-Alparo guilty on both counts and 

Huerta not guilty on either count. 1 She was sentenced to 

sixty-three months' imprisonment for each count, 

sentences to run concurrently. 

with the 

On appeal, Dominguez-Alparo argues that her defense and 

Huerta's defense were mutually antagonistic, and, thus, as a 

matter of law, the trials should have been severed. 

Alternatively, she maintains that without severance she was 

prejudiced at trial. 2 

The parties agree that no motion for severance was ever 

presented to the district court. Since Dominguez-Alparo did not 

seek severance in the trial court, she waived the issues presented 

unless she can show actual prejudice resulting from the joint 

1 The district court granted Maese's motion 

verdict at the close of the government's case . for directed 

2 Dominguez-Alparo suggests that there was insufficient 

evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in light 

of the granting of Maese's motion for directed verdict. After 

examining the transcript of the trial, we are convinced the 

evidence was sufficient to support her conviction. See United 

States v. Sasser, 974 F.2d 1544, 1560 (10th Cir. 1992) (evidence 

sufficient when, viewed in light most favorable to government, 

reasonable jury could find defendant guilty beyond reasonable 

doubt), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1063 (1993). 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 5 
. 1 3 tria . See United States v. Killip, 819 F.2d 1542, 1547 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 987 (1987). 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) provides that two or 

more defendants may be charged in the same indictment if they 

allegedly participated in the same acts constituting the offense. 

Generally, defendants who are indicted together should be tried 

together. Zafiro v . United States, 113 S. Ct. 933, 937 (1993 ) . 

If, however, it appears that a defendant is prejudiced by the 

joinder, Fed. R. Crim. P. 14 provides that the district court may 

order severance. 

The Supreme Court has recently held, in a case in which the 

defendants moved for severance, that 11 [m]utually antagonistic 

defenses are not prejudicial per se. 11 Zafiro, 113 S. Ct. at 938. 

When codefendants present mutually antagonistic defenses Rule 14 

does not require severance, even if prejudice is shown. Id. 

Rather, the district court has sound discretion to tailor 

appropriate relief. "[W]hen defendants properly have been 

joined under Rule 8(b), a district court should grant a severance 

under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial 

would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, 

or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or 

innocence . " Id . Limiting instructions are often sufficient to 

cure any risk of prejudice. Id. 

Although we recognize that a motion for severance on the 

ground of mutually antagonistic defenses was made in Zafiro, 

3 The inquiry on Dominguez-Alparo's claims merges 

must show actual prejudice from the joint trial. 

6 

because she 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 6 
whereas no motion was made in this case, we believe Zafiro 

controls the outcome of this case. Under the circumstances of 

this case, we need not decide whether or to what extent the tests 

of "actual prejudice" and "serious risk" differ. We are satisfied 

that there was no fundamental trial error and that the jury could 

make a proper determination without severance. Accordingly, we 

conclude there was neither "actual prejudice" nor "serious risk" 

in this case. 

Dominguez-Alparo alleges that acceptance of one defendant's 

defense precluded acquittal of the other defendant . Also, she 

maintains, without setting forth any specific instances of 

prejudice, that the antagonistic nature of their defenses 

prejudiced them. These allegations alone do not present a 

sufficient factual basis for prejudice. .c..t..... Qnited Stat~s v. 

Smith, 788 F.2d 663, 668 (10th Cir. 1986) (whether actual prejudice 

is shown is a fact question). 

Dominguez-Alparo was not entitled to severance merely because 

she may have had a better chance for acquittal with a separate 

trial. Zafiro, 113 S. Ct. at 938. In fact her chances for 

acquittal may have been better with a joint trial. Although 

Dominguez-Alparo was aware prior to trial, as she admits in her 

brief on appeal, that she and Huerta would assert contrary 

defenses, she did not move for severance. Thus, it appears that 

she made an informed strategic decision to proceed with a joint 

trial . The government points out that if Dominguez-Alparo had 

moved for and been granted severance, Huerta's exculpatory 

statement would have been inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 7 
804(b) (3), which excludes statements against interest when the 

declarant is available as a witness, and the government would not 

have sought to use the statement. At a joint trial, however, the 

government was required to introduce the statement. Thus, we 

conclude Dominguez -Alparo's decision not to move for severance was 

based on trial strategy. She cannot now argue that the trial 

strategy, which did not compromise her trial rights, was 

prejudicial to her. Additionally, we note she did not file a 

reply brief contesting the government's arguments concerning trial 

strategy. 

Even if there was some risk of prejudice, it was cured with 

proper instructions similar to those approved in Zafiro, 113 

S . Ct. at 939. In Zafiro, the Court stated that the district 

court properly instructed the jury that the government had the 

burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant 

committed the charged crimes, that it must separately consider 

each defendant and the charges against that defendant, and that 

the opening and closing arguments were not evidence. The 

district court in this case instructed similarly. It told the 

jury that any statements, objections, or arguments made by the 

lawyers were not evidence in the case. Vol. I, tab 68 at 13. 

More importantly, the court instructed that 

A separate crime or offense is charged against each of 

the defendants in each count of the indictment. Each 

offense, and the evidence pertaining to it, should be 

considered separately. Also, the case of each defendant 

should be considered separately and individually. You 

should analyze what the evidence in the case shows with 

respect to each defendant leaving out of consideration 

entirely any evidence admitted solely against the other 

defendants. The fact that you may find one or more of 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 8 
the defendants guilty or not guilty of any of the 

offenses charged should not control your verdict as to 

any other offense or any other defendants. 

Id. at 18. Additionally, the court instructed the jury that it 

must find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 

3, 4. The jury was able to follow these instructions, evaluate 

the credibility of the witnesses, and return a reliable verdict. 

See Zafiro, 113 S. Ct. at 939; United States v. Swingler, 758 F . 2d 

477, 494 (10th Cir. 1985). 

Because the jury reached a decision based on proper 

instructions and a separate trial could have been potentially more 

harmful to Dominguez-Alparo, we conclude she did not suffer any 

prejudice by the joint trial under any standard. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 9 
Appellate Case: 90-2240 Document: 010110191124 Date Filed: 03/16/1993 Page: 10