N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JOSE JESUS PER

E Z, AKA JoseJe sus, Jr., AKA JoseJ. Pe re z ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50519

D.C . No. 5:13-c r-00087- VAP-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia A. Phillips, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 29, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, SILVER M A N, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Jose Je sus Pe re z a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion on thre e c ounts of dep rivation of rights unde r c olor of la

w in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 242. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED SEP 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)(C ).All of the c ha rge s we re ba se d on se xua l e nc o unte rs Pe re z ha d with two wom e n while he wa s se rving a s a San B e rnardino polic e offic e r. W e re v ie w the distric t c o urt’ s e v i de ntia

ry rulings for a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se eUnite d State s v . Hay at , 710 F.3d 875, 893 (9th C ir. 2013). 1. Pe re z c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of the gove rnm e nt’ s m otions i n limine , whic h pre c lude d the introduc tion of e vide n c e of one of the vic t im ’ s prior re l ationships with two othe r San B e rna rdino polic e offic e rs , de prive d him of his right to due proc e ss a nd a fa ir tria l. In c a se s involving a

lle ge d se xua l m isc onduc t, Fe de ra l R ule of Evide n c e 412 e xc lude s “ e vide nc e offe re d to provetha t a vic tim e n ga ge d in othe r se xua l be havior” or “ e vide nc e offe re d to provea vic tim ’ s se xua l pre disposition.” Fe d. R . Evid. 412(a)(1)-(2). The purpose of the rule is to “ sa fe gua rd the a l le ge d vic tim a ga inst theinva sion of priva c y , pote ntia l e m ba rra ssm e nt a

n d se xua l ste re oty

ping that is a ssoc iate d with public

disc losure of intim ate se xua l de ta ils a nd the infusion of se xua l innue ndo into the fa c tfinding proc e ss.” Id. a dvisory c om m i tte e note s to 1994 a m e ndm e nts. Pe re z sought to introduc e e vide nc e of the vic tim ’ s se xua l history with othe r San B e rnardino polic e offic e rs to im ply tha t she c onse nte d to se xua l a c tivity with him , Pe re z . This is pre c i se ly the sort of e vide n c e tha

t R ule 412 wa s de signe d to 2pre c lude . Pe re z c onte nds tha t this e vide nc e wa s a dm issibleunde r R ule 412(b)(1)(C ), whic h

a llows a c rim ina l de fe nda nt to introduc e e vide nc e if its e xc lusion would viola

te the de fe nda

nt’ s c onstitutiona

l rights. B ut the C onstitution doe s not re quire the a dm ission of the vic tim ’ s se xua l history , whic h would se rve no purposeothe r tha

n to pla y on soc i a l pre

judic e s surrounding se xua l a c tivity and to “ infus[e ] se xua l innue ndo into the fa c tfinding proc e ss.” Id. The distric t c ourt’ s stra ightforwa

rd a pplic ation of R

ule 412 wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion. 1 2. The c ounte rpart to R ule 412, Fe de ra l R

u le of Evide nc e 413, pe rm its the d istric t c o urt to “ a dm it e vide nc e tha t the de fe nda

nt c om m itte d a ny othe r se xua l a ssa ult.” Fe d. R . Evid. 413(a). “ Evide n c e that te n ds to show tha t [a de fe nda

nt] c om m itte d a nothe r se xua l a ssa

ult . . . te nds to show tha

t [the de fe nda

nt] ha d the prope n sity

to c om m it a nothe r se xua l a ssa

ult.” Unite d State

s v . Re dlightning, 624 F.3d 1090, 1120 (9th C ir. 2010). R ule 413 de fine s se xua l a ssa ult a s “ a c rim e unde r fe de ra l la w or unde r state la

w” tha t inc lude s “ any

c o nduc t prohibite d by

18 U.S.C . c ha pte r 109A” an d “ an atte m p t . . . to e nga ge in [the ] c onduc t de sc ribe d” a

bove . Fe d. R . Evid. 413(d)(1), (5). An a tte m pte d viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 2242 thus falls within theam

bit of R ule 413.

1 The distric t c ourt a lso note d tha t any probative va lue of this e v ide nc e wa s substa

ntia l ly outwe ighe d by

the da nge r of pre

judic e to the vic t im ’ s c re dibility . Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 403. W e ne e d not re a c h this a lte rnate ground. 318 U.S.C . § 2242 prohibits knowingly “ c a u s[ing] anothe r pe rson to e n ga ge in a se xua l a c t by

thre ate ning or pla c ing tha t othe r pe rson in fe ar.” 18 U.S.C . § 2242. Theque stion he re is whe the r Pe re z pla c e d X.C . in fe ar. “ Whe n the re le va nc e of e vide nc e de pe nds on whe the r a fa c t e xists, proof m

u st be introduc e d suffic i e nt to support a

finding tha

t the fa c t doe s e xist.” Fe d. R . Evid. 104(b). Thus, thegove rnm e nt wa s re quire d to introduc e suffic i e nt e v ide nc e for a re a s ona ble jury to find by

a pre ponde ranc e of the e v ide nc e tha t Pe re z pla c e d X.C . in fe ar. Se eHuddle

ston v . Unite d State

s , 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988) (“In de te rm i ning whe the r the Gove rnm e nt ha s introduc e d suffic ie nt e vide n c e to m e e t R ule 104(b), thetria l c o urt . . . e xam ine s a l l the e vide nc e . . . a nd de c ide s whe the r the j ury c ould re a sona

bly find the c onditional fa c t . . . by a pre ponde ra

nc e of the e vide nc e .” ). The gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e shows tha t Pe re z a pproa c he d X.C . at night whe n she wa s isola

te d and a lone . He wa s driving his polic e c ar and we aring his uniform . Fina lly , he im plie d tha t X.C . m ight bearre ste d on drug c ha rge s a nd pre s sure d he r to ha

ve se x with him . The s e fa c ts, ta k e n toge the r, are suffic ie nt to a llow a re a sona ble jury to find by

a pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e tha t Pe re z pla c e d X.C . in fe ar. The distric t c ourt the re fore did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting e vide nc e of Pe re z ’ s e nc ounte r with X.C . unde r R u le 413.

43. The distric t c ourt a lso did not a buse its disc re tion in de c l ining to e xc lude e vide nc e of Pe re z ’ s e nc ounte r with X.C . unde r R ule 403. In a

p ply ing R ule 403 to e v ide nc e of a

de fe nda nt’ s prior se xua l m isc o nduc t, the distric t c ourt m ust c onside r: “ (1) ‘ the sim ila

rity of the prior a c ts to thea c ts c ha rge d,’ (2) the

‘ c lose ne ss in time of the prior a c ts to thea c ts c ha rge d,’ (3) ‘ the fre que nc y

of the prior a c ts,’ (4) the ‘ p re s e nc e or la c k of inte rve n ing c i rc um sta nc e s,’ and (5) ‘ the ne c e ssity of the e vide nc e be y ond the te stim onie s a l re a dy offe re d at tria l.’ ” U

nite d State s v . Le May , 260 F.3d 1018, 1027-28 (9th C ir. 2001) (quoting Rudy -Glazne r v . Glazne r , 232 F.3d 1258, 1268 (9th C ir. 2000)). Thedistric t c ourt thoroughly c onside re d e a c h

of the se fa c tors. W e c onc lude tha t thre e of the five fa c tors fa vor the g ove rnm e nt’ s position. First, Pe re z ’ s c onduc t towa

rds X.C . is pa

rtic ula rly probat ive be c a

use it wa s ve ry

sim ila r to his e nc ounte rs with thevic t im s in this c a se . Se c ond, thee nc ounte r with X.C . wa s only a pproxim ate l y one y e a

r be fore the c ha rge d c rim e s , whic h is a

re lative l y short pe riod of time . On the fourth fa c tor, the distric t c o urt de te rm ine d tha t the re we re no inte rve ning e ve nts be twe e n the X.C . e nc ounte r and Pe re z ’ s c ha rge d c onduc t towa

rd the vic tim s he re tha

t would le sse n the p robative va lue or inc re a se the pre judic ia l e ffe c t of the unc ha rge d c onduc t. The distric t c ourt c a

re fully a pplie d the Le

May fa c tors a nd we c onc l ude , on ba la

nc e , that this a pplic ation wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion.

54. Fina lly , Pe re z ra ise s a due proc e ss c l a im

ba se d on the a sse rte d c um ulat ive e ffe c t of the c ha lle nge d e vide ntia ry e rrors. B e c a

use , a s we hav e e xpla ine d a

bove , the distric t

c ourt’ s e vide ntia

ry rulings we re prope r, Pe re z ’ s a sa pplie d due proc e ss c ha lle nge fa ils a s a m atte r of la w. Se eLe

May , 260 F.3d a

t 1027 (“ If the prior a c ts of m ole sta tion we re prope rly a dm itte d unde r R ule 403, the re c an ha

ve be e n no a s-a

pplie d c o nstitutiona

l viola t ion.” ).

• ! • For the fore going re a sons, thejudgm e nt of c onvic tion is AFFIRM E D.

6