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. LATONIA SM ITH,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 22-10037

D.C . No. 2:19-c r-00304-R

FB -VC F-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R ic ha rd F. B oulwa

re II, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 6, 2023 ** La s Ve ga s , Ne v a d a B e fore : C LIFTON, B YB EE, a nd B ENNETT, C i rc uit Judge s. Latonia Sm ith a ppe a ls he r c onvic tion of fivec ounts of m a i ling thre a te ning
c om m unic a tions pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C . § 876(c ). Sm ith a rgue s tha t the distric t 

# FIL ED
MAR 15 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c ourt e rre d in de ny i ng a m istria l, a dm i tting e vide nc e tha t wa s privile ge d or unfa irly pre j udic i a l, a n d instruc ting thejury
. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e find no re v e rsible e rror in the d istric t c o urt’ s rulings. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm
. 1. The pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts in this c a se and we re pe a t the m only a s ne c e ssa

ry . The distric t c ourt “ is in thebe st position to de te rm ine whe the r
an inc ide n t m e rits a

m istria l.” U

nite d State

s v . Le mus , 847 F.3d 1016, 1025 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Unite d State s v . Gardne r , 611 F.2d 770, 777(9th C ir. 1980)). W e de fe r to the distric t

c ourt’ s de c ision re ga

rding a m istria l a nd will re v e rse only

if the d istric t c o urt a

buse d tha t disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Sanford

, 6 73 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th C ir. 1982). Sm ith a lle ge s tha

t a m istria l wa s wa

rrante d for two re a sons: First, Sm ith
argue s tha

t the jury wa s pre

judic e d be c a

use one of the vic tim s who re c e ive d a thre a te ning le tte r initia lly re fuse d to a

n swe r que stions a

bout he r c hildre n. Howe ve r, this vic tim did e ve n tua lly te stify a bout the se de ta ils in the

pre se nc e of the j ury . In a ddition, the

distric t c ourt ga

ve the jury

an instruc tion not to dra

w a ny infe re n c e s from

the inte rruption. W

he n a c ourt give s a c urative instruc tion, the re is
a “ strong pre sum

ption” tha t the jury follows tha

t instruc tion. Le mus , 847 F.3d a t 1025 (quoting U

nite d State s v . Pav on , 561 F.2d 799, 803 (9th C ir. 1977)). Fina lly ,

2the i nte rrupte d vic tim ’ s te s tim ony did not pre

judic e Sm ith be c a

use the e v ide nc e that Sm ith inte nde d to thre a te n he r vic tim s wa s ove rwhe lm ing. Se e Unite d State s
v . N olan , 700 F.2d 479, 485 (9th C ir. 1983) (c o nc luding tha t the re wa s “ little que stion tha

t the jury would ha ve c onvic te d [the de fe nda n t] re ga rdle ss” ). Se c ond, Sm ith a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry ruling c a u se d de fe nse c ounse l to m ake a “ broke n prom ise ” to the jury . De fe nse c ounse l prom ise d tha t the jury would he ar e vide n c e that one of the vic tim s a ssa ulte d Sm ith, but a fte r le arning from the distric t c ourt tha t this e vide nc e c ould ope n the door to dam a ging re butta l e vide nc e , de fe nse c ounse l e le c te d not to introduc e it. The
re c o rd shows tha

t the distric t c ourt inform e d c ounse l tha t it would ne e d to re visit its e v ide ntia

ry rulings depe nding on wha t e vide nc e wa s introduc e d a nd whe the r Sm i th took the

sta nd. The distric t c ourt a l so instruc te d the jury not to dra

w a ny
c onc lusions from

Sm i t h’ s de c ision not to te stify
. Se e Unite d State s v . Padilla , 639 F.3d 892, 897 (9th C ir. 2011) (the a ppe lla t e c ourt should “

p re sum e tha

t jurie s follow instruc tions given to the m throughout the

c ourse of the tria l” ). The distric t c ourt a c te d we ll within its judgm e nt whe n it de nie d Sm i th’ s
m otion for a

m i stria l. Doing so wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion. 2. Sm ith a

rgue s on a

ppe a l tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in its instructions to the j ury . B e c a

use Sm ith did not obje c t to this instruction, we re vie w for pla in
3e rror. J

ohnson v . Unite d State

s , 520 U.S. 461, 466–67 (1997). Howe ve r, we ne e d not re ve rse the c onvic tion if “we still find bey ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t the jury would ha ve c onvic te d [the de fe nda nt] e ve n if it ha d be e n prope rly instruc te d.” Unite d State s v . Mille r , 953 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th C ir. 2020). At tria l, the distric t c ourt instruc te d the jury that it c o uld find Smith guilty if it found tha

t she “ a c tua lly

inte nde d for the c om

m unic a tion to beunde rstood or pe rc e ive d a s a

thre a t or be lie ve d tha

t the c om m un ic a t ion would be unde rstood or pe rc e ive d a s a

thre a t to injurethe re c e ive r of the c om m unic a tion or a

nothe r pe rson.” Afte r Sm ith’ s c onvic tion, we de c i de d Unite d State s v . Bac hme ie r , 8 F.4th 1059 (9th C ir. 2021). Bac hme i e r he ld tha t c onvic tion unde r § 876(c ) re quire s tha t

“ the spe ake r . . . subje c tive ly inte nd to thre at e n,” an d found tha t jury instruc tions sim ila r to Sm ith’ s we re e rrone ous. Id. a t 1064–65 (interna l quota tion a nd c ita tion
om i tte d). Howe v e r, the re is ove rwhe lm ing e vide nc e that Sm i th inte nde d to thre a te n he r vic tim s. One of he r le tte rs spe c ifie d tha t it wa s a “ R EAL THR

EAT.” Anothe r
m e ssa ge told thevic tim

“ C ongratula

tions y ou ha

ve just be e n a dde d to the hit list.” A third le tte r told thevic tim , “ Your throa t will be slit,” “ You will behunte d to the
e nds of the e arth,” and “ Whe n y ou le a st e xpe c t it y ou will be g for y our live s and y our c h ildre ns [sic ] live s.” B e c a use Sm ith c le arly

inte nde d to thre a te n, “ the re is no
4re a s ona

ble possibility

” tha t the distric t c ourt’ s jury

instruc tions “ m a te ria lly a ffe c te d the v e rdic t.” Bac hme ie r , 8 F.4th a t 1065 (inte rna l quota

tions a nd c ita tions omitte d). 3. For the first tim e on a

ppe a l, Sm ith a

rgue s tha t a n e m a il she se nt to Adva n c e d Psy c hiatry

wa s privile ge d. B e c a

use this issue

wa s not ra ise d be low, we
re vie w only

for pla i n e rror. J

ohnson , 520 U.S. a

t 466–67. The pa rty a s se rting the fe de ra l psy c hiatric -patie n t privile ge be ars the burde n of showing tha

t 1) the c om

m unic a tion wa s se nt to a

lic e nse d psy c hothe ra

p i st, 2) the c om m unic a tion wa s c onfide ntia l, a nd 3) the c om

m unic a tion wa s m a de in the
c ourse of dia gnosis or tre a tm e nt. Unite d State s v . Romo , 413 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th C ir. 2005). He re , Sm ith c annot e s ta

blish tha t the c om m unic a tion wa s privile ge d be c a use she fa ile d to show tha

t it wa s se nt in thec ourse of dia gnosis or tre a tm e nt. At tria l, de fe nse c ounse l e xplic i tly disc l a im e d the argum e nt tha t the e m a i l wa s privile ge d. Sm i th m a inta ine d tha

t e m a ils se nt from

he r a c c ount c ould ha

ve c om e from

othe r pe ople . In fa c t, Sm ith’ s m othe r te stifie d tha t “ any one ” c o uld ha

ve writte n it. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt ne ve r de te rm ine d tha t Sm i th wa s the se nde r, and instruc te d the jury

tha t the distric t c o urt m a de no finding a s to the ide ntity of the
se nde r. W ithout providing inform at ion a bout the purpose of the e m a il, the
e xpe c tations of these nde r, a nd the c o nte xt in whic h

it wa s se nt, Sm i th c a

nnot
5e sta

blish tha t the e m a il wa s privile ge d. Romo , 413 F.3d a t 1047. Thedistric t c ourt did not plainly

e rr in a dm itting the Adva nc e d Psy c hiatry

e m a il. For the re a s ons sta

t e d a bove , we AFFIRM the judgm e n t be low.

6