Source: http://openjurist.org/152/f3d/1195/united-states-v-alviso
Timestamp: 2015-03-02 01:19:54
Document Index: 750333427

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326']

152 F3d 1195 United States v. Alviso | OpenJurist
152 F. 3d 1195 - United States v. Alviso	Home152 f3d 1195 united states v. alviso
152 F3d 1195 United States v. Alviso 152 F.3d 1195
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6614, 98 Cal. DailyOp. Serv. 7774,98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,791,98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9165UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jose Guadalupe ALVISO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-10100.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 1998.Decided Aug. 26, 1998.As Amended Oct. 14, 1998.
A jury convicted defendant of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (being a deported alien found in the United States without permission)1 and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) (being such an alien after having been deported following a felony conviction).2 Defendant appeals, asserting that: (1) the government violated his Fifth Amendment rights by failing to prove that it had found him on the date specified in the indictment; and (2) the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior felony convictions. We affirm defendant's conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) but reverse his conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1).
The government then prosecuted defendant for violating 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). Before trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of his prior felony convictions. He agreed to stipulate to the existence of the convictions and argued that the nature of the convictions was not admissible. The district court delayed ruling on defendant's motion.
During trial, defendant renewed his objection, arguing that evidence of his prior convictions was not relevant and that, even if the evidence was relevant, its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value. The district court overruled the objections. First, the court held that the prior convictions were relevant to one of the charged offenses, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). Second, the court held that defendant's opening statement suggested that defendant did not in fact agree to stipulate to the existence of the prior convictions.
In reviewing a denial of a motion for acquittal, we consider whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the contested element beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1337 (9th Cir.1998), petition for cert. filed, --- U.S.L.W. ---- (U.S. July 16, 1998) (No. 98-5309). With respe