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 ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DEM ETRIUS ANTHONY GOM EZ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-30123

D.C . No. 4:16-c r-00129-B LW -1
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2018 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B U R NS, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt De m e trius Gom e z a

ppe a ls from

a jury c onvic tion for
se c o nd-de gre e m

urde r in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1111 a nd 1153. On a

ppe a l, Gom e z c o nte sts thedistric t c o urt’ s se c ond-de g re e m urde r jury instruc tions, the



# F IL ED DEC 20 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Honora

ble La rry A. B urns, Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.prose c utor’ s use of Gom e z ’ s nic kna m e during trial, a

nd the prose c utor’ s inc orre c t sta te m e nts during c losing a

rgum e nt re ga

rding the loc ation of thevic t im Ty rone Dia z ’ s wound. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. Whe re , a s he re , a

pa rty did not obje c t to jury instruc tions or alle g e d prose c utoria l m isc onduc t at the tim e of tria l , we re vie w the jury instruc tions a

nd
a lle ge d prose c utoria l m isc onduc t for pla in e rror. Fe d. R
. C rim . P. 52(b); Unite d State s v . C onti , 804 F.3d 977, 981 (9th C ir. 2015) (jury instruc tions re v ie we d for pla i n e rror); Unite d State

s v . W a shington , 462 F.3d 1124, 1136 (9th C i r. 2006) (prose c utoria l m isc o nduc t re vie we d for pla in e rror); Unite d State s v . Atc he son , 94 F.3d 1237, 1244 (9th C ir. 1996) (de nia l of m otion for ne w tria l due to prose c utoria l
m isc o nduc t not ra i se d during trial re vie we d for pla in e rror). Unde r the pla in e rror sta nda rd of re vie w, re lie f is wa

rrante d if (1) the re ha s be e n a n e rror; (2) the e rror is

“ pla in” ; (3) the e rror a ffe c ts substa ntia l rights, “m e a

n ing it wa s pre

j udic ia l ” ; a

nd (4) the e rror “ s e riously

a ffe c t[e d] the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re puta tion of judic ia l proc e e d ings.” C

onti , 804 F.3d a

t 981 (quoting U

nite d State

s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734–36 (1993))
. He re , the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr whe n it fa ile d to sua

sponte instruc t the jury that a

se c ond-de gre e m

urde r c onvic tion re quire s the gove rnm e nt to disprovehe at of pa s sion or sudden qua rre l be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt whe n no
2e vide nc e of e ithe r ha d be e n introduc e d at tria l. Furthe r, the distric t c o urt did not

pla i nly e rr whe n it fa ile d to pre ve nt the prose c utor from re pe ate dly and a lm ost
e xc lusive ly

re fe rring to Gome zby

his nic kna

m e “ B a sh.” Although the gove rnm e nt’ s pra c tic e of re fe rring to Gom e z a s “ B a sh” wa s a rgua bly ina p propria te , we c onc lude , ba se d on thewe ight of thee vide nc e , tha t it did not pre j udic e Gom e z . Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr whe n it de c line d to orde r a ne w tria l ba se d on theprose c utor’ s a rgua b ly ina c c urate sta

t e m e nts
re ga rding theloc ation of Dia

z ’ s wound be c a

use those sta

te m e nts we re not pre j udic i a l. AFFIRM E D.

3