# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 37 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mo de st o Al fred o To rrez

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Farg o

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 5, 2 01 9 Fi le d: May 31, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Mo de s t o Torr ez ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on fo r m ur de r in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug
tra ff i ck in g co ns pi racy an d ot he r rel at ed ch arg es , ch al le ng in g se ve ral of th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s as well as o ne juro r su bs ti tu ti on at t ria l. We affir m

.

1

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , Ci rcu it Ju dg e , Uni te d St at es Co ur t of 1 App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it
, si tt in g by de si gn at io n at th e ti m e of jud gm en t, was aI. Ba ck gr ou nd

In 20 16
, a gr an d jury in di ct ed Torr ez an d se ve r a l a l l e g ed co co ns pi rat or s, ch arg in g To r r ez in fo ur of th e co un ts : (1 ) co ns pi racy to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e an d co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of a m ix tu re an d su bs ta nc e

co nt ai ni ng m et ha m

ph et am in e; (2 ) m

ur de r in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug tr a f fic ki ng

co ns pi racy; (3 ) cau si ng de at h by us e of a fir earm du rin g a dr ug tra ffi ck in g cri m e; an d ( 4 ) ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce. All of th e ot he r al le ge d co co ns pi rat or s na m ed in t h e in di ct m en t pl ed gu il ty to at le as t on e co un t of th e in di ct m en t. Onl y Torr ez pr oc eed ed

to tri al , whi ch be ga n i n l at e Sep te m be r 20 17

.

Acco rd in g to ev id en ce in tro du ced at tri al
, th e in ve st ig at io n in to Torr ez be ga n in Mar ch 20 16 at a Fl y in g J Trav el Cen te r in Gran d Fo rk s, Nor th Dak ot a. Po li ce

res po nd ed to an em erg en cy cal l at th e Fl y in g J, whe re th ey f o u n d Aus ti n Fo rs m an de ad in th e fro nt se at of a car, sh ot in th e face

. Two pe op le who ha d arri ve d aft er th e sh oo ti ng to ld po li ce t o ta lk to Aaro n Mo rad o. He was on e of Torr ez’s de al ers , a nd he ro ut in el y so l d met h am ph et am in es to Fo rs m an

. In Mar ch 20 16
, a di sp ut e de ve lo pe d be twee n Mo rad o an d Fo rs m an be cau se Mo rad o fai le d to ti m el y su pp ly

m et h th at Fo rs m an ha d p u rch as ed in ad va nc e. W hi le th e di sp ut e be twee n th e two

m en di d no t tu rn vi ol en t, on e of Torr ez’s as so ci at es ul ti m at el y sh ot Fo rs m an a t t he Fl y in g J an d t he n d ro ve Mo rad o t o m eet up wit h To rrez an d Lo rie Orti z.

The in ve st ig at io n in to th is sh oo ti ng al so he lp ed co nf irm To r r ez’s ro le in an

on go in g dr ug in ve st ig at io n. In la te 20 15
, po li ce rece iv ed a t i p t h a t a pe rs on on
pr ob at io n in Nor th Dak ot a ha d be en se ll in g m et h in Gran d Fo rk s. A pr ob at io n se arch of th e ho us e whe re th at pe rs on was st ay in g re ve al ed m et h, an d h e la te r ad m it te d he ob ta in ed th e m et h fro m Ry an Fran kl in

. In tu rn , Fran kl in to ld in ve st ig at or s th at Torr ez

Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of Nor th Dak ot a du rin g th e tri al in th is

m at te r.

-2

-ha d arra ng ed hi s m et h su pp ly, c o o r d i n a ti ng two tri ps to Mi nn es ot a whe re Fran kl in

ob ta in ed fiv e p ou nd s an d s ix po un ds of m et h, re sp ect iv el y

.

Afte r a fiv e-d ay tri al
, a jury fo un d Torre z gu il ty on th ree cou nt s and gu il ty of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng a fo ur t h co un t (d eat h cau se d by us e of a fir earm du rin g a dr ug
tra ffi ck in g crim e). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Torr ez to li fe im pr is on m en t, and he ti m el y ap pe al ed

.

II . Anal ys is

Torr ez rai se s fiv e arg um en ts on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he arg ue s t h a t e v i d en ce of hi s
pr io r co nv ic ti on an d su pe rv is ed rel eas e st at us was im pr op erl y ad m it te d. Seco nd
, he

arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s Co nf r o nt at io n Cl au se rig ht s whe n ad m it ti ng a la bo rat or y rep or t an d rel at ed te st im on y . Th ird , h e arg ue s Lori e Orti z was no t a co

co ns pi rat or an d th at he r st at em en ts wer e i na dm is si bl e. Fo ur th
, he arg ue s Ry an Fran kl i n ’s te st im on y ab ou t be in g m ot iv at ed to co op erat e by so m eo ne el se ’s

co op erat io n vi ol at ed th e ru le on no t ad m it ti ng gu il t y p l e a n e go ti at io ns

. Fi na ll y , h e
arg ue s t he di st ric t co ur t er red by sub st it ut in g a juro r wit h t he alt ern at e juro r.

A. Prio r Con vi cti on Ev id ence

Torr ez’s c h a l l e ng e to ev id en ce of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on an d ot he r al le ge d

wro ng do in gs is un pe rs ua si ve be cau se th e te st im on y at is su e sa ti sf ie s Fed

. R

. Ev i d

. 40 4( b)

. “ Evi de nc e of a cri m e, w ro ng , or ot he r act is no t ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a
pe rs on ’s ch arac te r in or de r to sh ow th at on a pa rti cu la r oc cas io n th e pe rs on act ed in

acco rd an ce wit h th e ch arac te r.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (1 ). “ Thi s ev i d e n c e may be ad m is si bl e fo r an ot he r pu rp os e, su ch as pr ov in g m ot iv e, op p or tu ni ty, in te nt , pr ep arat io n, pl an , kn owl ed ge , id en ti ty, ab se nc e of m is ta ke
, or la ck of acci de nt .” Id

. 40 4( b) (2 ). Bec au se Torr ez rai se s th es e ob jecti on s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al
, we

rev ie w fo r pl ai n e rro r. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Le e , 37 4 F .3d 63 7, 6 49 (8t h C ir. 20 04 ).

-3

-Thre e st at em en ts are at is su e on ap pe al

. Fi rs t, Fran kl in te st ifi ed th at he st art ed

d e a l i ng dr ug s ag ai n be cau se of a de bt he owe d to Torr ez fro m an ol de r dr ug
tra ns act io n. Seco nd
, Fran kl in ’s gi rlf rie nd
, Sara h Lan do wsk i, te st ifi ed th at Fran kl in ha d to ld he r he “ ha d go tt en a go od op po rtu ni ty fro m so m eb od y th at jus t go t ou t of

pr is on ,” refe rri ng to Torr ez. Thi rd
, Sam m y Torr ez te st ifi ed th at he wor ke d w i th
Fran kl in on m et h d eal s b ecau se hi s b ro th er To rrez was at a ha lfwa y ho us e in Farg o

an d c ou ld no t p art ic ip at e d ire ct ly.

Ass um in g th at an y of th es e refe ren ces to Torr ez’s pa st in vo lv em en t wit h dr ug s tri gg ered Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (1 ), th e y w ere pe rm is si bl e un de r Fed

. R. Evi d.
40 4( b) (2 ). The fir st two st at em en ts on ly cl ari fy Torr ez’s m ot iv e fo r w o r k i n g wit h
Fran kl in

. The th ird st at em en t co nc ern s Torr ez’s m ot iv e fo r in vo lv in g Sam m y in th e 2
rel ev an t dr

ug tra ns act io ns

. Thu s, we se e no pl a i n e r r o r h e re in th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it th e ev id en ce.

B. Con fro nta tio n Cla us e

Any vi ol at io n of Torr ez’s Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se rig ht s is not pla in er ro r be ca us e it di d no t affe ct hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. “ In al l cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s, th e accu se d sh al l 3

en joy th e rig ht

. . . to b e co nf ro nt ed wit h th e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t hi m .” U.S. Co ns t.

am en d. VI. The “ wit ne ss es ” in th is rig ht are an y pe rs on who be ars te st im on y ag ai ns t

a de f e nd an t. Mel en de

z- Dia z v. Mas sa ch us et ts , 55 7 U.S. 30 5, 30 9 (2 00 9)

. W he n a dr ug an al y si s rep or t is of

fere d at tri al
, th e de fen da nt ha s a rig ht to co nf ro nt th e an al y st

W e u se Sam m

y ’s firs t n am e to di st in gu is h h im fro m hi s b ro th er. 2

W e do no t ad dr es s th e pa rti es ’ di sp ut e ab ou t whe th e r To r r e z’s co un se l 3 kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly waiv ed hi s Con fro nt at io n Clau se rig ht s by no t ob jecti ng be cau s e ev en if we fo un d th at fo rfei tu re oc cu rred rat he r th an waiv er, se e Uni te d St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 3 (19 93 ), Torr ez cann ot sat is fy m or e th an th e fir st two co m po ne nt s of pl ai n erro r rev ie w. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mor ri ss ey , 89 5 F.3 d 54 1, 55 4 (8 th Cir . 20 18 ).

-4

-who wro te th e rep or t. Id

. at 31 1; Bul lc omi ng v. New Mexi co , 5 6 4 U

. S

. 6 4 7
, 66 2

(2 01 1 )

. To rrez no w ob

jects to th e ad m is si on of a dr ug an al y si s rep or t wit ho ut th e

an al y st ’s te st im on y

. Bec au se he rai se s th is is su e fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap p e al
, we

rev ie w th e de ci si on to ad m it th e ev id en ce for pla in erro r. Se e Lee , 37 4 F .3d at 64 9.

“ Und er pl ai n erro r rev ie w, th ere m us t be [1 ] an erro r [2 ] th at is pl ai n [3 ] whi ch affe ct s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Id

. The la b rep or t at is su e on ly co nf irmed a b o u t 4 1 0 g r am s of

m et h, whi le th e jury fo un d Torr ez gu il ty of a co ns pi racy in vo lv in g 50 0 gr am s or m or e of m et h, m e a n i n g th e jury m us t ha ve fo un d ot he r ev id en ce pe rs ua si ve

. The m os t rel ev an t ot he r ev id en ce wou ld ap pe ar to be th e nu m ero us wit ne ss es who te st ifi ed to

m et h t r a n s act io ns wit h Torr ez, in cl ud in g th e mul ti pl e po un ds of m et h he he lp ed

4
Fran kl in acq ui re. The jury m us t ha ve be li ev ed at le as t on e of th e ot he r wit ne ss es to

co nv ic t Torr ez of a co ns pi racy in vo lv in g su ch a la rg e qu an ti ty of m et h. Bec au se th e jury’ s be li ev in g ot he r wit ne ss es was bo th ne ces sa ry an d su ffi ci en t to ob ta in Torr ez’s

co nv ic ti on s, ad m it ti ng th e la b rep or t (o r te st im on y ab ou t it ) co ul d no t affe ct Torr ez’s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Thu s, we ho ld no pl ai n erro r oc cu rred in th e ad m is si on of th e la b

rep or t an d re la te d t es ti m on y

.

C. Co- co ns pi ra to r Sta tements

The ev id en ce of L or ie Orti z’s in vo lv em en t in th e dr ug tra ffi ck in g co ns pi racy

was su ffi ci en t to ad m it he r ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts

. In or de r to ad m i t O r t i z’s

st at em en ts un de r Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 )(E), th e Gov ern m en t ne ed ed to sh ow: “ (1 ) th at a co ns pi racy ex is te d; (2) th at th e d efen da nt an d t he de cl aran t wer e m em be rs of th e co ns pi racy; an d ( 3 ) t h a t th e de cl arat io n was m ad e du rin g th e co ur se an d in fu rth eran ce of th e c o n s pi racy.” Uni te d St at es v. Ki ng , 35 1 F.3 d 85 9, 86 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Beckma n , 22 2 F.3 d 51 2, 52 2 (8 th Ci r

. 2 00 0) ). W e

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de c i s i on to ad m it th e ev id en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n,

One po un d is ap pr ox ima t el y 45 0 gr am s, whi ch ex ceed s th e am ou nt of m et h 4 in th e la b re po rt.

-5

-al th ou gh we arg ua bl y rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r th e di s t r i c t c o ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s on

whe th er th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a jury to fin d th at Orti z was a co -co ns pi rat or

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Ma

yf ie ld , 90 9 F .3d 95 6, 9 61 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8)

.

As in May fi el d
, we ne ed no t res ol ve th e st an da rd of rev ie w is su e to res ol ve th is

cas e be cau se we se e no erro r he re. Orti z’s ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en t at is su e oc cu rred

on th e ni gh t of Fo rs m an ’s m ur de r whe n, be fo re sh e an d Torr ez wen t to m eet up wit h

o t h e r s , s he cal le d he r ex -b oyfrien d an d as ke d hi m to co m e joi n th em “ fo r he r
pr ot ect io n” an d to br in g hi s gu n. Evi d e n c e a t tri al sh owe d Orti z was of te n wit h
Torr ez fo r hi s dr ug de al in g, sh e was wit h Torr ez th e ni gh t of Fo rs m an ’s m ur de r, an d sh e al so he lp ed de s t r oy ph on es in vo lv ed in th e m ur de r. Eve n if sh e was on ly an

acce ss or y aft er th e fact to Fo rs m an ’s m ur de r, as Torr ez arg ue s, th e ev id en ce of he r in vo lv em en t in th e m

ur de r is st il l rel ev an t t o h er st at e of m in d reg ard in g th e dr ug

co ns pi r a c y. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ja mes , 56 4 F.3 d 96 0, 96 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (n ot in g th at ot he r ba d act s are rel ev an t to th e st at e of m in d of an al le ge d co -co ns pi rat or who

us es a m ere pr es en ce de fen se ). Her r e q u e st to he r ex -b oyfrien d wou ld al so be in fu rth eran ce o f th e d ru g t raff ic ki ng co ns pi racy b ecau se sh e wan te d pr ot ect io n whi le he lp in g Torr ez wit h hi s de al ers an d t he ir cu st om ers

. On th is reco rd
, th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fin di ng th at Orti z was a co -co ns pi rat or was ne it he r an ab us e of di sc ret io n no r cl ear e rro r.

D. Gui lty Plea Nego tia tio ns

Torr ez’s al le ga ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d ev id en ce of gu il ty pl ea

ne go ti at io ns is un pe rs ua s iv e an d m ay in vo lv e in vi te d erro r. Aga in
, we rev ie w

ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r a b us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W at so n , 89 5 F.3 d
58 9, 5 94 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8) . Howev er, i nv it ed erro rs are g en eral ly u nr ev ie wab le

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ca mpb el l
, 76 4 F.3 d 87 4, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t

ru le d Fran kl in co ul d no t te st ify th at To r r e z ’ s in it ia l co op erat io n m ot iv at ed hi m to

co op erat e, Torr ez’s co un se l ag r e e d t o a le ad in g qu es ti on ab ou t whe th er so meo ne ’s

-6

-co op erat io n m ot iv at ed Fran kl in to co op erat e. Eve n if co un se l on ly m ean t to ag ree to

th e le ad in g fo rm at of th e qu es ti on rat he r th an th e qu es ti on it se lf, we are no t co nv in ced th e qu es ti on was erra nt

. Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we se e n o im pl ic at io n of Torr ez’s

co op erat io n fro m th e v ag ue refe ren ce to so m eo ne el se ’s c oo pe rat io n in th is reco rd

. Thu s, we h ol d n o e rro r oc cu rred he re.

E. Ju ro r Subs tit uti on

The arg um en t ab ou t su bs ti tu ti ng juro rs al so fai ls be cau se of in vi te d erro r. Torr ez’s co un se l ag reed to swa p th e juro r at is su e wit h th e al te rn at e juro r. Thu s, th e in vi te d e rro r do ct rin e p recl ud es ou r rev ie w.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-