Opinion ID: 505493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements Made by Appellant

Text: 14 On April 11, 1986, some six months after the events for which he was indicted, Pelletier was stopped and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. After the arrest, while at the police station and without formal Miranda warnings, 2 officer Young had a conversation with appellant regarding the latter's drug activities. Pelletier made several incriminating statements during that conversation. After a suppression hearing the judge declared the April 11 statements admissible over Pelletier's objections that he was given improper Miranda warnings and was incompetent to waive his rights due to intoxication. At trial, however, the court declared the April 11 statements inadmissible because their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Fed.R.Evid. 403; Tr. at 147-48. 15 Appellant now challenges the court's finding at the suppression hearing. This argument is epitomically moot. The statements were never presented to the jury, therefore no harm could result from the outcome of the suppression hearing. 16 The next set of challenged statements occurred on April 24, 1986, when appellant was arrested pursuant to a warrant based on an indictment for his November 1985 drug activities. While en route to the police station, defendant stated I guess Ax [Strickler] and Morse must have gone and testified about my dealings. He also stated that he didn't sell drugs to pregnant women or children. The ride to the station lasted only a few minutes. Only at the station did the officers warn Pelletier of his Miranda rights. 17 At the suppression hearing the court found that the statements were admissible because they were spontaneous, before any questioning or inducement by the agent, and made during a very short car ride. The court also found that the statements were made rationally, intelligently and voluntarily, even though appellant was to some extent intoxicated at the time. These statements were proffered at trial. 18 Pelletier presents two arguments regarding this matter. First, because the statement referring to pregnant women and children was in the present tense he urges the court to find that the statement was irrelevant to transactions allegedly made some six months earlier. The improper inference that concerns appellant is that if appellant was selling drugs in April, he must have been doing so in November. He therefore contends that the prejudice resulting from the admission outweighs the probative value it may have. However, appellant's characterization of his drug customers amounted to an admission under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2). The court exercised its discretion properly. 19 Furthermore, as to the statement about Pelletier's clients and that about his coconspirators, we see no basis to reverse the court's ruling. Trial judges have broad discretion in applying Rule 403 as a limitation to admissibility of statements offered on some specific ground. See United States v. Zeuli, 725 F.2d 813, 816 (1st Cir.1984). The government avers several proper grounds for admissibility. First, as mentioned above, as an admission, Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2), since the statement about his clients could reasonably be interpreted as a reference to the crimes for which he was charged. As to the reference to Strickler and Morse we similarly find no error. At the time he made the statement Pelletier knew why he was arrested; he mentioned the witnesses who were his alleged coconspirators. A second proper ground for admission is that, by referring to his associate Strickler, appellant confirmed the identity of the Fred Strickler had mentioned. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). We therefore find no abuse of discretion in allowing admission of the statements. 20 The second broad challenge to the statements, that suppression was required based on Fifth Amendment grounds because he had not received Miranda warnings, is less worthy of discussion. There is no indication of any interrogation on the part of the arresting officer, nor any kind of police act that was reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689-90, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). The Fifth Amendment was simply not implicated.III. Sufficiency of the Evidence 21 Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence from two angles: first, by claiming the judge erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal, and secondly by directly questioning the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the jury. In reviewing both lines of argument the standard is the same: we must view the evidence and reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the government and determine whether the government produced sufficient evidence for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 384 (1st Cir.1985). 22 The evidence presented by the government may be summarized as follows: Strickler testified that on November 7, 8, and 15, 1985, he sold Navy officer Fulstone quantities of cocaine that he had obtained from appellant. Morse testified that the cocaine Strickler sold Fulstone on November 15 came from appellant. Both Strickler and Morse testified that these sales were part of a pattern of cocaine trafficking and that appellant provided the drug for these transactions. At trial, both Strickler and Morse positively identified Pelletier. Officer Fulstone testified that Strickler identified his cocaine source as Fred--appellant's nickname. Finally, appellant's statements to the arresting officer agree with the government's description of the facts. We find this evidence is sufficient to support Pelletier's convictions.