NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

N o

. 18

- 2 3 9 4

______________

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

v

.

M A U R I C E F R E Z Z E L L

,

A p p e l l a n t

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the W e stern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. C r i m . No. 2

- 1 7

- c r

- 0 0 2 0 8

- 0 0 1 )

District Judge: Honorable A r t h u r J

. S c h w a b

______________

Submitted under Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

O c t o b e r 2 5

, 2 0 1 9

BEFORE: GREENAWAY , J R

. , P O R T E R

, and GREENBERG, Circuit J udges

.

(Filed: October 31, 2019 )

______________

OPINION *

______________

____________________

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

c onst itut e binding precedent.2

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge

.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendan t

- Appellant Maur ice Frezzell files this appeal in a criminal action

challenging his conviction a t a j u r y t r i a l for distri bu tion and possession with intent to

distribute heroin

. Frezzell contends that the District Court impermissi bly allowed the

gover nme nt to solicit irrele vant and prejudicial testimony from its star witness that

inf luence d the jury ’ s verd ict

. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are unc omplicated

. T h e p o l i c e b e l i e v e d t h a t Frezzell was a

drug dealer a n d t h e y d e t e r m i n e d t o a r r e s t h i m f o r t h a t r e a s o n . Lat e in 2015, the

government e nlisted the assista nce of Glenn Albert , a drug user k n o w n t o Frezzell, to se t

up a sting operation t o b r i n g a b o u t F r e z z e l l ’ s a r r e s t

. Under the observation of

investiga tors , Al bert arranged to purchase two bricks of heroin from Frezz ell a t a

d esignat ed time a t a bar in Monessen , Pe nnsylvania. The investigators observed Frezze ll

enter the bar shortly aft er Albert, and less than ten minutes la ter F r e z z e l l le f t the bar

a h e a d o f A l b e r t . Albert left the bar a few minutes after w a r d s and met with the

investigators at a pre

- determined location w i t h possession of two bricks of heroin.

D u r i n g t h e m e e t i n g A l b e r t w a s w e a r i n g recording devices t hat relay e d video and

audio of the encounter to the investigators in real time. Alt hough the recordings d i d n o t

r e f l e c t the drugs b e i n g t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m Fre zzell t o Albert, there were recordings of th e m3

talking to each other at the bar, including a conver sation th a t appears to h a v e b e e n a

n egot iation of the price for the drugs . Albert testified at trial that he obtained the two

bricks of h eroi n from Frezzell at the b ar.

During Albert ’ s testimony, the prosecutor i n q u e s t i o n i n g a l l o w e d u n d e r federal

law asked him to disclose his cooperation with the gov ernm ent, an d

, i n p a r t i c u l a r

, that he

had received compen sation for his coopera tion in the form s of monetary payment a nd the

cessation of prosecution in ot her cases. See United States v. Bagley

, 473 U.S. 66 7

, 683

-

84, 1 05 S. Ct. 33 75, 3384 (1985 ). Albert also testified to his history of drug use, and

admitted that he had used dr ugs ten days prior to testi fying

, a n a d m i s s i o n which led to the

following exchange :

Q : You told us that about ten days ago you had s m oked crack cocaine.

A : Uh

- huh.

Q : What’s happened in your family in the last couple of weeks that caused

you to

--

A : Yeah, just

--

[DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Objection; relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY [GOVERNMENT]:

Q : Go ahead, sir.

A : Would you repeat the ques tion? Wha t’s happened in my life, my

family?

Q : Yes, that caused you to go back to drugs.4

A : There’s just been a couple of

— a couple of things. My daughters,

both

— one is graduating from college, one’s graduating from high s c hool.

My e x

- wife and I wer e like bes t friends up until a few weeks ago. And I

don’t know what happened, but

— we’ve been separated for four or five

y ears, divorced a couple of years, and she found somebody else, and

— you

know, kind of

— kind if [sic] hurt me a little bi t. I’m still

— I’m still a l ittle

bit hurt; but, you know, I fell into a backslide, and I’m not proud of it. You

know, I jumped out of it pretty q uickly and I

— I

— I just need to get my life

back to where it was.

Supp. App. SA 180

- 81. A f t e r h e a r i n g t h i s t e s t i m o n y t o w h i c h F r e z z e l l o b j e c t e d a n d o t h e r

e v i d e n c e

, t h e j u r y c o n v i c t e d Frezzell

. A f t e r s e n t e n c i n g

, t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d

.

III. DISCUSSION

The Distri ct Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231

, and we have

jurisdi ction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. On t his appea l, Fr ezzell raises only one challenge to

his conviction: h e argues that the District Court erred w hen it overrul ed his relevancy

objection t o t he above t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g A l b e r t ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r h i s t h e n r e c e n t u s e o f

d r u g s

. F r e z z e l l c o n t e n d s th at the t estim on y was pre judicial because it “ elicit[ed] . . .

sympathy f

o r [the government ’ s] star witness Gle nn Albert which endeared him to the

jury

. ” Appel lant ’ s br. 2

. 1 We disagree w i t h h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s u n f a i r l y

p r e j u d i c i a l e v e n i f w e a c c e p t h i s d o u b t f u l c l a i m t h a t i t c a u s e d t h e j u r y t o b e s y m p a t h e t i c

t o A l b e r t

.

1 We general ly review a d istrict c ourt ’ s evidentia ry rulings for abuse of discretion.

Uni ted S tates v. Bail ey , 840 F.3d 99 , 117 (3 d Cir. 2016). If the defendant failed to

object, we re view for plain error. United S tates v. Christie , 62 4 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir.

201 0 ).5

First, we reject the challenge that the testimony was not relevant. I t l o n g h a s b e e n

r e c o g n i z e d t h a t

[a] witness is n ot rendered incompetent to testify merely because the

witness was unde r the influence of drugs at the time of testifying. A

wit ness unde r the influence of drugs is competent to testify unless he or she

is so impaired t hat he or she cannot coherently resp o nd to questioning. It is

not an abuse of discreti on for a tr ial c ourt to allow or refuse to strike

testimony from a witness who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If

it is determined a witness in [ s i c ] intoxicated at the time of giving

testimony, it i s proper for the trial court to allow the testimon y and leave it

f or t he jury to determine the proper weight of the witness ’ tes timony.

98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 115 (2 019)

. O f c o u r s e

, “ [ i ] f the witness was under the influence at

the time of the events which he testifies to or at the ti me he testifies, this cond ition is

pr ovable to impeach on cross or by extrinsic evidence. ” 1 McCormick on Evi d. § 44 ( 7 t h

e d

. 2016) . E vidence offered to “ show that [a witness] was so much addicted to the use o f

the drug that the question whether, at the moment of testifying, [ h e o r ] she was unde r i ts

inf luence, or had recovered from th e effects of its last administratio n, ha [s] a material

bearing upon [ h i s o r ] her reliability as a witness ” and is there fore admissible

. Wilson v

.

United States , 232 U.S. 563, 568, 3 4 S .Ct. 347, 349 (19 14)

.

W e a r e s a t i s f

i e d that Albert ’ s test imony during the exchange was relevant and

admis sible. A fter he had informed the jury of his his tory of d rug use, and disclosed that

as recently as ten days e a r l i e r he had used drugs, it w as proper for the go ver nme nt to

questio n h im o n t h e i s s u e o f whether the use was an is ol ated i ncident as opposed to

habitual use, and wh eth er he had recovered from the effects of the latest use

. W e a r e

s a t i s f i e d t h a t “ t h e evidence w as not offered or admitted for its bearing upo n [ the witness ’ ]6

ch ara cte r [.] ” A c c o r d i n g l y , t he District Court did not er r in overruling Frezzell ’ s

objection.

We also reject Frezzell ’ s contention that the testimony wa s u n f a i r l y prejudic ial.

W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t “ [ t ] he court ma y exclude rel eva nt evi dence if its probative value is

substantially outweigh ed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,

confusi ng the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or nee dlessly

presenting cumulative evidence

. ” Fed. R. E vid . 403. B u t i n t h i s c a s e w e d o n o t see w h y

t h e probative val ue o f t h e e v i d e n c e was substan ti ally outweighed by any of the p o s s i b l e

b a s e s f o r i t s e x c l u s i o n o utlined in Rule 403. Frezzell c h a l l e n g e s t h e a d m i s s i o n o f the

testimony o n t h e t h e o r y t h a t i t m a d e A l b e r t s ymp athetic to the jur y o r e v e n

, a s F r e z z e l l

c e r t a i n l y o v e r s t a t e s

, e n d e a r e d h i m t o t h e j u r y

. H o w e v e r

, Alb ert was not on trial.

C o n s e q u e n t l y

, t h e j u r y was not tasked to decide whether Albert should be punished for a

crime, so we d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d w hy a n y pote ntial sympathy for him had an y bearing on

the j u r y ’ s dete rmination o f wh ether he was credible

.

Moreo ver, i n order for us to c o n c l u d e that t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m a d e a n error s o

s e r i o u s i n a d m i t t i n g t h e c h a l l e n g e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t i t require s u s t o r e v e r s e h i s conviction,

F r e z z e l l must show that the erro r contribut ed to the conviction. See United States v. Ali

,

493 F.3 d 387, 392 n.3 (3d Cir. 2007) ( find ing tha t a n evidentiary error is ha rm less if “ it is

highly probab le that [ it] did not contribu te to con viction ” ) ; United States v. Toliver , 330

F.3d 607, 612 (3d Cir . 200 3) (finding that non

- constitutio nal errors are harmless unless

t h e y “ had substantial and inj urious ef fe ct or influence in det ermining the jur y ’ s verdict ” )

(quot ing Kotteakos v. Uni ted S tate s , 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 123 9, 1253 (1946) ). We7

are convi nce d t h a t e v en if the Court erred in admitting the testimony in question,

overwhelming evi dence in the re c o rd agai nst Frezzell made it s a d m i s s i o n harmless.

I n t h e a b o v e r e g a r d i t i s c l e a r t h a t i f Al bert h a d not t estified t h a t h e b o u g h t t h e

d r u g s f r o m F r e z z e l l

, t h e r e w a s s t i l l c l e a r e v i d e n c e t h a t F r e z z e l l a r r i v e d a t t h e d e s i g n a t e d

t i m e a n d a g r e e d u p o n p l a c e f o r t h e d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n a n d e n t e r e d t h e l o c a t i o n

. T h e r e w e r e

r e c o r d i n g s o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n h i m a n d A l b e r t i n s i d e t h e b a r

, a n d t h e e v i d e n c e

w a s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e t w o m e t a s p l a n n e d

. T h e r e w e r e n o r e c o r d i n g s o f A l b e r t

s p e a k i n g t o a n y o n e e l s e o t h e r t h a n t h e b a r t e n d e r t o o r d e r d r i n k s

. A n d m o s t d a m n i n g l y

,

A l b e r t l e f t t h e b a r w i t h t w o b r i c k s o f h e r o i n i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n

, t h e e x a c t a m o u n t h e w a s

t a s k e d t o p u r c h a s e f

r o m F r e z z e l l

. T h u s

, e v e n w i t h o u t A l b e r t ’ s t e s t i m o n y t h e r e w a s n o

r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f

o r h o w h e o b t a i n e d t h e d r u g s

, o t h e r t h a n h e o b t a i n e d t h e m f r o m

F r e z z e l l

, e x a c t l y a s p l a n n e d b y t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n t h e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n

. I n s u m

, w e f i n d

th a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n a d m i t t i n g t h e c o n t e s t e d t e s t i m o n y

, b e c a u s e w e r e j e c t

a n y c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t w a s i r r e l e v a n t o r u n f a i r l y p r e j u d i c i a l

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, e v e n i f t h e

e v i d e n c e s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n a d m i t t e d i t s a d m i s s i o n w a s h a r m l e s s

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e

w i l l a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e o f J u n e 1 3

, 2 0 1 8

.