Opinion ID: 197384
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Lottery Check

Text: 65 At trial, the government admitted into evidence a photocopy of a 1992 lottery check seized from Montalvo at the time of his arrest. The check was in the amount of $250,000. The government introduced the evidence because Robles revealed to the undercover team that he had provided a winning lottery ticket in the amount of $250,000 to a friend of Papo who, the government claimed, was in the drug business. That appellant possessed a check for the exact amount was, the government argued, probative of his involvement in the alleged conspiracy. Furthermore, the government claims that the fact that the check was dated two years before the events described does not change the fact that it was relevant because Papo had worked with Robles for a long time and the check was offered to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy long before the events of May through July 1994. 66 Appellant Montalvo claims that the check lacked relevance to the case. He claims that [t]here was no evidence to show that the ticket had come from Robles, that it was purchased with the proceeds of drug transactions or that it evidenced Montalvo's involvement with Robles in drug distribution at some earlier time. Brief of Appellant Montalvo, at 32. In essence, appellant contends that there was nothing to indicate that the check was evidence of any element of any charged offense. 67 We add that, at sentencing, the judge stated, I don't find a reasonable connection for this case to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the $250,000 lottery ticket that was purchased is part of this conspiracy, and therefore I am excluding it. Transcript of Sentencing, at 10. 68 We review this evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 443-44 (1st Cir.1994). 69 Our review of the testimony fails to reveal any demonstrated connection between the photocopy of the check and the charges brought against defendants. The check was from before the dates at issue in this case and no evidence was put forward to suggest that it was connected to drug transactions, except the general claim by the government that lottery checks were used to launder money. The government argued at trial, however, that the check was relevant to demonstrate the existence of the conspiracy prior to the dates at issue. Given our deferential standard of review, we, therefore, do not find abuse of discretion in this case. Although we might conclude differently if our review were de novo, we do not believe that the court abused its discretion in accepting this argument. 4 70