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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C HR ISTOPHER

B R YAN AB LETT, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10267

D.C . No. 3:09-c r-00749-R S-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd THOM A S, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, Distric t Judge
. ** C hristophe r Able tt a

ppe a ls his fe de ra l jury

c onvic tion a

n d se nte nc e for
m urde r in a id of ra c ke te e ring, a ssa ult with a da nge rous we a

pon in a id of
ra c k e te e ring, use or posse ssion of a fire a rm in furthe ranc e of a c rim e of viole nc e ,



# FIL E D APR 03 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de signa tion.and use or posse ssion of a fire arm in furthe ranc e of a

c rim e of viole nc e re sulting in
m urde r. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thehistory

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here .

I W e ne e d not de te rm ine whe the r the distric t c ourt e rre d in its e vide ntia ry rulings, be c a

use we c onc lude tha

t a ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. An e rrone ous de c ision to e x c lude e vide nc e – e ve n if it a m ounte d to a

n a buse of disc re tion – will be
re ve rse d only

if it is “m ore like ly

tha n not tha t the e rror a ffe c te d the ve rdic t.” Unite d State s v . Edw a rds , 235 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th C i r. 2000). The ove ra ll stre ngth of theprose c ution’ s c a se a ga inst Able tt wa s ove rwhe lm ing. Able tt, who c la im e d se lf-de fe n se and de fe nse of othe rs, shot the vic t im in the ba c k of the he a d

while the vic tim

wa s ly ing prone and im

m obile in the s tre e t, in spite

of his a nd the othe r e nda

nge re d pa rtie s ha ving two ve hic le s a s a m e ans of e sc a

pe . No witne s s c orroborate d Able tt’ s c l a im tha t he wa s fire d on by
m e n in a ne arby SUV. M ore ove r, the jury re je c te d Able tt’ s se l f-de fe n se c la im
e ve n though e y e witne sse s te stifie d tha t the vic t im

wa s the first a ggre ssor. W hile the e xc lude d e vide nc e m ay hav e inc re a se d the pla usibility of Able tt’ s a c c o unt tha

t the v ic tim wa s the first a ggre ssor a

nd wa s prone to the use of forc e , it is unlike ly to have a ffe c te d the ve rdic t . 2The e vide ntia ry rulings did not de

prive Able tt of his c onstitutiona l right to

“ a m e a ningful opportunity

to pre se nt a

c o m ple te de fe nse ,” unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s gua

rante e of due proc e ss or the Sixth Am e ndm e nt’ s gua ran te e of
c om pulsory proc e ss. C

ranev . K e ntuc k y , 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (quoting C alifornia v. Trombe tta , 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). B e c a use the e x c lude d
e vide nc e wa s not “ne c e ssa ry for the de fe nda

nt to re fute a c ritic a l e le m e nt of the prose c ution’ s c a se ” or “ e sse ntia l to thede fe nda nt’ s a lte rnative the ory

of the c a se ,”
and in fa c t Able tt wa s a

ble to pre se nt c onside ra

ble e vide nc e supporting his se lfde fe nse the ory , we c onc lude tha t the re wa s no c onstitutiona l viola tion. Unite d State s v . Pine da-Dov al , 614 F.3d 1019, 1033 (9th C ir. 2010). II Able tt a rgue s tha t by offe ring a

m utua l c om bat instruc tion, a

nd a llowing the gove rnm e nt to fra

m e an a rgum e nt ba se d

on the instruc tion, thedistric t c ourt viola te d his fre e dom s of spe e c h a nd a ssoc iation prote c te d

by the First Am e ndm e nt. B e c a use Able tt did not raise this issue be fore the distric t c ourt, we re vie w the distric t c o urt's instruc tions for plain e rror. Unde r pla in e rror re vie w, we m ay re ve rse a distric t

c ourt’ s de c ision only

whe n the de fe nda

nt e s ta blishe s tha

t (1) the distric t c o urt ha s e rre d; (2) the e rror is pla in, or “ obvious,”unde r c urre nt la w; (3) the e rror “ a ffe c t[s] substa ntia l rights” of the de fe nda nt; a nd (4) the e rror “ s e riously 3a ffe c t[s] the fa irne ss, inte grity or public re p utation of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 733–37 (1993) (inte rna l quota

tions omitte d). W e ne e d not de te rm ine whe the r Able tt sa tisfie d the first thre e e le m e nts of pla i n e rror be c a

use granting theinstruc tion a nd a llowing a

rgum e nt from

it did not

“ se riously a ffe c t the fa irne ss, inte grity

or public re p utation of judic ia l proc e e dings,” give n the ove rwhe lm ing e vide nc e of guilt a n d the e xtre m e we akne ss of the se lf-de fe nse c la im
. Id
. III The gove rnm e n t c onc e de s tha t the distric t c ourt viola

te d Able tt’ s rights unde r the Sixth Am e ndm e nt’ s Double Je opa rdy C la use by se n te nc ing him

to c onc urre nt se nte nc e s for both useof a fire arm in furthe ranc e of a c rim e of viole nc e , unde r 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ), a nd use of a

fire arm in furthe ranc e of a

c rim e of viole nc e re sulting in m urde r, unde r 18 U.S.C . § 924(j)(1). Unde r the Bloc k b urge r te s t, Able tt wa s se nte nc e d twic e for the sa m e offe nse , be c a

use the form e r c rim e doe s not re quire proof of a ny fa c t in a ddition to those that m ust be prove n for the latte r c rim e . Se e Bloc k burge r v . Unite d

State s , 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).

4W e a ffirm Able tt’ s c o nvic tion, but re m and to the distric t c ourt with instruc tions to vac ate one of Able tt’ s se n te nc e s unde r e ithe r 18 U.S.C . § 924(c ) or 18 U.S.C . § 924(j).

AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

5