Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02326/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02326-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luciano Martinez-Figueroa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The HONORABLE RICHARD E. DORR, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2326

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Luciano Martinez-Figueroa, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2003

Filed: April 5, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

Missouri state highway patrol officers stopped Luciano Martinez-Figueroa

driving a tractor-trailer rig on Interstate 44 near Joplin, Missouri. A consent search

of the refrigerated trailer revealed a load of cheddar cheese and 537 kilograms of

marijuana. Figueroa was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and

possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841and 846. A jury convicted him on both counts, and the district court1

 imposed

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2004 Entry ID: 1753475
-2-

a ninety-seven month sentence. Figueroa appeals, arguing that the district court

abused its discretion (i) in refusing his mid-trial request to ask the Secret Service

about a confidential informant’s whereabouts and a later request for a missing witness

instruction, and (ii) in admitting patrol officer Daniel Banasik’s background

testimony about Figueroa’s trucking logbook. We affirm.

At trial, undercover narcotics agent James Musche described how he infiltrated

the drug trafficking conspiracy by offering to store marijuana near Joplin. When the

time came for a delivery, Musche met confidential informant Edward Raifsnider at

a truck stop near Interstate 44. Musche testified that conspirator Jamie De La Pena

was in the front passenger seat of Raifsnider’s vehicle and Figueroa was in a rear seat.

After a brief conversation, De La Pena told Figueroa to “go get the truck.” Narcotics

agents followed the truck when it left the truck stop and contacted the highway patrol

officers, who stopped the truck soon thereafter. 

Officer Banasik testified that he questioned Figueroa at the scene of the arrest

after giving Miranda warnings. Figueroa first denied but then admitted knowing that

he was hauling marijuana. Banasik used Figueroa’s trucking logbook in questioning

him about the circuitous route he had traveled from California, where the cheese was

loaded, toward Crawfordsville, Indiana, where it was scheduled to be delivered. The

logbook showed that Figueroa had lingered in California for two days and then

traveled the same route through New Mexico to Texas on two consecutive days. The

government also introduced evidence that there was no seal on the trailer door when

the truck was stopped, contrary to a bill of lading for the cheese. After the

government rested, Figueroa took the stand. He admitted keeping a false logbook to

evade government trucking regulations. He denied being at the truck stop or knowing

either De La Pena or Raifsnider. Figueroa accused the highway patrol officers of

removing the seal from his trailer, failing to advise him of his Miranda rights, and

coercing a false confession. 

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2004 Entry ID: 1753475
2

The requested instruction provided in relevant part: “If it is peculiarly within

the power of either the government or the defense to produce a witness who could

give relevant testimony on an issue in the case, failure to call that witness may give

rise to an inference that this testimony would have been unfavorable to that party.”

See United States v. Anders, 602 F.2d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 1979); Model Criminal Jury

Instructions for the Eighth Circuit § 4.16.

-3-

I. The Missing Witness Issue.

Two months before trial, the prosecutor sent a letter to defense counsel

identifying informant Raifsnider and advising that Raifsnider was a fugitive. (The

letter is not in the record on appeal.) On cross examination at trial, agent Musche

testified that he had learned of Raifsnider’s fugitive status from Secret Service agents

but could not say when Raifsnider had become a fugitive. Defense counsel then

requested “that the Secret Service be called to testify to explain why [Raifsnider] is

unavailable.” The court denied that request. Later, at the instructions conference,

defense counsel asked the court to give a missing witness instruction.2

 The court

declined to give the instruction, explaining that it had no reason to doubt Musche’s

testimony “that the whereabouts of Mr. Raifsnider are no longer known to the

government.” 

Figueroa argues that the district court abused its discretion because the

government breached its duty “to make every reasonable effort to have [an informant

shown to be a material witness] made available to the defendant to interview or use

as a witness,” quoting United States v. Burton, 898 F.2d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 1990),

which in turn relied on United States v. Barnes, 486 F.2d 776, 779-80 (8th Cir. 1973).

The government’s duty to disclose the identity of an informant whose testimony may

be material at trial is an exception to the “informer’s privilege.” See Roviaro v.

United States, 353 U.S. 53, 58-62 (1957). We held in Barnes that, if the government

fails to disclose a material informant’s name and address prior to trial, it “was

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2004 Entry ID: 1753475
-4-

obligated to have at least made a reasonable effort to locate him prior to trial for

interview by the defendant and use as a possible witness.” 486 F.2d at 780.

In this case, it is undisputed that, well before trial, the Assistant U.S. Attorney

identified Raifsnider and advised defense counsel that he was a fugitive, in other

words, that his present address was unknown. This disclosure satisfied the

government’s initial duty under Barnes. Figueroa apparently did nothing to locate

Raifsnider before trial and certainly did not bring the issue of his whereabouts to the

court’s attention until the cross examination of Musche near the end of the

government’s case. Then, defense counsel asked the court to order an unidentified

Secret Service witness to testify regarding Raifsnider’s whereabouts, making no

showing that such a witness was available and could provide even marginally relevant

testimony. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying that untimely request.

See United States v. Oates, 173 F.3d 651, 658-59 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S.

890 (1999). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in later refusing to give a missing

witness instruction. The government had presented evidence that Raifsnider’s

whereabouts were unknown, and Figueroa had presented no evidence to the contrary.

A missing witness instruction “is not warranted if the defense does not adequately

show that the government possesses the sole power to produce the witness.” United

States v. Johnson, 562 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1977). 

II. The Logbook Testimony.

At trial, Officer Banasik testified that, after questioning Figueroa about the

course of his travels, “I went up to the tractor unit to obtain the bill of lading [and] his

logbook . . . to see if I could determine if there were any discrepancies in what he told

me and what the paperwork stated.” After identifying a government exhibit as the

logbook he used, Banasik was asked, “What is the purpose of a logbook?” The court

overruled Figueroa’s timely objection, and Banasik responded:

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/05/2004 Entry ID: 1753475
-5-

The logbook has several purposes. One, truckdrivers are

regulated by law how long they can drive, how long they have to sleep.

They’re very regulated on how much they can drive and stuff. The

logbook basically records their activities so if they are stopped by law

enforcement purposes, the law enforcement officer can go back and

ensure that they are not in violation of federal or state law, overdriving

and stuff.

Companies use it also to verify that their drivers picked up a load,

and sometimes it verifies how many miles they have driven, how many

loads they have taken. Then it also verifies their trip. If they have a bill

of lading that says they’re from somewhere and they get stopped and it

verifies -- the logbook should show that they had stopped there to pick

up a load and stuff.

On appeal, Figueroa argues that the district court abused its discretion by permitting

Officer Banasik to testify as an expert witness when the government had not given

the notice required by Rule 16(a)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence limits opinion testimony by lay

witnesses “to those opinions or inferences which are . . . (c) not based on scientific,

technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702,” which deals

with the admissibility of testimony by expert witnesses. This limitation is designed

to prevent a party from using lay opinion testimony to “subvert[] the disclosure and

discovery requirements of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 26 and 16 and the

reliability requirements for expert testimony.” United States v. Peoples, 250 F.3d

630, 641 (8th Cir. 2001). In general, unless a law enforcement officer is qualified as

an expert, opinion testimony “is admissible only to help the jury or the court to

understand the facts about which the witness is testifying and not to provide

specialized explanations or interpretations that an untrained layman could not make

if perceiving the same acts or events.” Peoples, 250 F.3d at 641.

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/05/2004 Entry ID: 1753475
-6-

In this case, Officer Banasik had firsthand knowledge based upon his use of the

logbook to interrogate Figueroa after his arrest. The above-quoted testimony was in

the nature of foundation to explain to the jury why Banasik was able by reason of his

training and experience as a highway patrol officer to use the logbook to verify or

refute Figueroa’s description of his travels. The explanation required a knowledge

of trucking regulations that an untrained layman might lack. But it was not

particularly technical. Indeed, a prior witness, patrol officer Mory McKnight, had

given testimony that reflected knowledge of how truckers keep logbooks without

objection, and Figueroa gave later testimony regarding the regulatory purposes of his

logbook that was consistent with Officer Banasik’s explanation. In these

circumstances, the district court did not abuse its Rule 701 discretion by permitting

Banasik to offer this lay opinion testimony. In any event, the challenged testimony

was cumulative, and thus any error was harmless. See United States v. Ortega, 150

F.3d 937, 944 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1087 (1999). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2326 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/05/2004 Entry ID: 1753475