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. JOSE TAVAR

ES-HER NANDEZ, AKA Jose He rnande z , Jr., AKA Jose Ta ra ve s , AKA Jose H. Ta

va re s, AKA Jose He rnande z Tava

re s, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50116

D.C . No. 8:11-c r-00232-JLS-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

3, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FISHER , M . SM ITH, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc uit Judge s . Jose Tava re s-He rnande z (Tava

re s) a ppe a l s from

his c o n vic tion for viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 287. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED M AY 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 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).1. The distric t c ourt did not err in its c onstruc tion of the he arsay rule an d did not a buse its disc re tion in de c iding to e xc lude the c onte ste d sta te m e nts a s he arsay . W e a ssum e , a s Ta va re s urge s, tha

t sta te m e n ts third pa

rtie s m a de to Tava re s c onc e rning thele ga lity of the ta x re fund sc he m e m a y have be e n
a dm issible a s nonhe arsay to show Ta

va re s’ s sta te of m i nd. Thus, Ta

va re s c ould have te stifie d to thosesta te m e nts. Howe ve r, Tava

re s a tte m pte d to introduc e those sta te m e nts through c ross-e xam ination of a n IR S a ge nt who inte rvie we d him
. Tava re s’ s own out-of-c ourt sta te m e nts a b out wha t third pa rtie s told him , e lic ite d from the a ge n t, we re he arsay . Tava re s a rgue s tha t his own sta

te m e nts e lic ite d from the a ge nt we re a lso
a dm issible a s nonhe arsay sta te of m ind e vide nc e . He c onte n ds the sta te m e nts show his “ c onsc iousne ss of innoc e n c e and la c k of m e n s re a ” be c a use the y de m onstra

te he c o ope rate d “ ope nly

and fully ” with the IR S’ s inve stiga tion. B ut Ta

va re s’ s sta te m e nts to thea ge n t prove c oope ra t ion only if the inform a tion he provide d wa s true . The re fore , Tava

re s’ s out-of-c ourt sta

te m e nts a bout wha t third pa rtie s told him
we re re le va

nt only if offe re d for the ir truth. Se e 2 M c C orm ic k on Evide n c e § 246 n.6 (“ A n a

rgum e nt tha

t a sta te m e nt is not offe re d for its truth is not te na ble . . . if it is re le va nt only if true .” ).

22. The distric t c ourt did not err in striking the c onte ste d he arsay

the
m orning a fte r it ha d be e n give n. “ [A] distric t c ourt m ay re c onside r its prior rulings so long a s it re ta i n s jurisdic t ion ove r the c a se .” Unite d State s v . Smith , 389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th C ir. 2004) (c iting C ity of Los Ange le

s v . Santa Monic a Bay k

e e pe r , 254 F.3d 882, 888 (9th C ir. 2001)). The gove rnm e nt ha d c onte m p orane ously obje c te d to som e , but not a ll, of the he arsay -e l ic iting que stions, and Ta va re s c onte nds the gove rnm e nt’ s re que st the following da y to strike a ll of the te stim ony c onstitute d im

p e rm i ssible “ sa

ndba gging.” “ [T] he c onte m pora ne ous-obje c tion rule pre v e n ts a

litiga nt from ‘ sa ndba gging’ the c ourt—

re m a i ning sile nt a

b out his obje c tion a

nd be late dly

ra i sing the e rror only

if the c a s e doe s not c onc lude in his fa vor.” Puc k

e tt v . Unite d State

s , 556 U.S. 129, 134 (2009) (som e inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). The gove rnm e n t did not “ sa ndba g” Tava

re s be c a use it did not a

wa it the outc om e of the c a se be fore ra ising theissue . Although the gove rnm e nt did not obje c t to e ve ry

he arsay -e lic iting que stion im m e diate ly a fte r it wa s a ske d, “ tria l
c ourts ha ve broa d disc re t ion in m aking e vide nc e rulings a nd ha ndling la te obje c tions.” J

e rde n v . Amstutz , 430 F.3d 1231, 1237 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d) (quoting HomeInde m. C o. v . LanePow e ll Moss &

3Mille r , 43 F.3d 1322, 1329 (9th C ir. 1995)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse tha t disc re tion he re . Tava re s a l so urge s tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s form

ulation of its instruction to the j ury to disre ga

rd the te stim ony

wa s ove rly

broa d. W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion, Mue lle r v . Auk e r , 700 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd hold tha

t the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in form ulating the instruc tion. 3. Tav a

re s a rgue s tha t the tim i ng of the distric t c ourt’ s ruling striking the t e stim ony

“ pre judic e d his right to fre e ly

c hoose whe the r to te stify ” be c a use the
c onte ste d sta

te m e nts we re in e vide nc e whe n Ta va re s ha d to de c ide ove rnight whe the r to te stify , but we re stric ke n the following m orning. Ne ithe r Unite d State s
v . Be nsimon , 172 F.3d 1121 (9th C ir. 1999), nor Unite d State s v . Gask ins , 849 F.2d 454 (9th C i r. 1988), supports Ta va re s’ s a rgum e nt. On the sa m e da y the he arsay

te stim ony wa s e rrone ously a dm itte d , a

nd be fore Tava

re s purporte dly

m a de his fina l de c ision not to te stify , the distric t c ourt inform e d Tava re s of its vie w tha

t the sta te m e nts should ha

ve be e n e xc lude d. The distric t c o urt re troa c tive ly e xc lude d the sta

te m e nts the ve ry

ne xt m o rning, whe n the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se wa s still ongoing. B e fore re sting, thegove rnm e nt put on
anothe r 75 pa ge s worth of te stim ony and ha d a dditiona l disc u ssions with the c ourt.

4This timing did not pre judic e Tava

re s. He would not ha

ve known whe the r the s tat e m e nts c a m e in through the inve stiga ting a ge nt until the

da y be fore his
sc he dule d tria l te stim ony , so e ithe r he wa s pre pa re d to te stify

in c a s e the sta

te m e nts
we re e xc l ude d, or he ha d

de c ide d he wa s not going to te stify re ga rdle ss of whe the r the y c a m e in. And, while

not dispositive , Tava

re s did not a sk for a

c ontinua nc e to
re c o nside r te stify ing in light of the distric t c ourt’ s ruling. AFFIRM E D.

5