Source: https://m.openjurist.org/673/f2d/86
Timestamp: 2020-02-22 07:32:32
Document Index: 481857183

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 846']

673 F2d 86 United States v. Vela | OpenJurist
673 F. 2d 86 - United States v. Vela
673 F2d 86 United States v. Vela
673 F.2d 86
10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 333
Ricardo "Ricky" VELA, Defendant-Appellant.
On November 12, 1980, a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Texas' Laredo Division handed down a five-count indictment charging Ricky Vela with: conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(a)(1), possession of a small sample of cocaine with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), distribution of that small sample of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possession of 639.1 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute it in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and distribution of 639.1 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).1 Vela was tried before a jury which acquitted him of the four counts alleging substantive offenses, but convicted him of the conspiracy count. He was sentenced by the judge to serve a six-year prison term and fined $10,000.
II. Notice of Alibi
Vela's attack raises the question of whether Rule 12.1 requires the prosecution either to use the notice-of-alibi procedure for an entire criminal transaction or to eschew use of the rule entirely. To invoke the rule, the prosecution must file a demand which states "the time, date, and place at which the alleged offense was committed." Many crimes, such as the conspiracy charged here, are accomplished over a long period of time. Cf. United States v. Bickman, 491 F.Supp. 277, 279 (E.D.Pa.1980) (citing as an example the continuing offense of holding stolen government property). In such cases, it would render the rule unworkable if the prosecution could not narrow its notice-of-alibi demand to a more limited interval.
Rather than render the rule useless in such situations, we recognize it to be permissible and consistent with the rule's purpose for the prosecution to seek notice-of-alibi with respect to a discrete temporal aspect of the crime charged. The defendant is amply protected if the prosecution makes it clear that it is invoking the rule in that manner. In today's case, the prosecution's demand and the surrounding circumstances known to Vela clearly apprised Vela of the manner in which the rule was being invoked. If Vela had been unsure about the scope of the crime charged he could have sought a bill of particulars. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(f). Clearly, the notice-of-alibi procedure is not intended to serve the office of such a bill.
In his brief, Vela also argues that the "Government ... failed to advise (him) as to what witnesses it would call upon to rebut alibi." Indeed, there is no evidence in the record indicating that the prosecution provided Vela with notice of the witnesses it would call to rebut his alibi. Rule 12.1(b) specifically requires such notice. Nonetheless, Vela's one-line argument presents no reversible error. First, Vela waived any objection to the prosecution's failure to provide him with such notice. Vela did not object when prosecution witnesses were called to testify. Second, the prosecution provided Vela with a list of its witnesses before trial. Vela has not alleged that the rebuttal witnesses' names did not appear on that list. Thus, Vela cannot claim prejudicial surprise from the appearance of those witnesses. See United States v. Portillo, 633 F.2d 1313, 1324 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1043, 101 S.Ct. 1763, 1764, 68 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981); McClendon v. United States, 587 F.2d 384, 388-89 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 983, 99 S.Ct. 1793, 60 L.Ed.2d 244 (1979); United States v. Floyd, 555 F.2d 45, 48 n.7 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 851, 98 S.Ct. 163, 54 L.Ed.2d 120 (1977).
III. Admission of Telephone Records
Our review of a trial court's decision to admit business records is a limited one. We test it only for abuse of discretion. See Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d 659, 665 (5th Cir. 1980). While the suggestion has been made that there are unique foundation requirements for the admission of computerized business records under Rule 803(6), see generally United States v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109, 1125 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940, 98 S.Ct. 432, 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977); McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence 733-34 (2d ed. 1972), this court has previously held that "computer data compilations ... should be treated as any other record of regularly conducted activity." Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d at 665. Like the computer records in the Rosenberg case, the telephone company's long distance billing records are "sufficiently trustworthy in the eyes of this disinterested company to be relied on by the company in conducting its day to day business affairs." Id.
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) provides that "it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance." 21 U.S.C. § 846 provides, in pertinent part, that "(a)ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both."