Opinion ID: 5296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Admission of the Documents.

Text: At trial, Fair objected to the relevancy of some of the documents discovered during the search. He appears to concede the relevancy of these documents in his appellate arguments, and now contends that the district court erred in not performing a Beechumtype weighing of their prejudicial impact. See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920 (1979). Fair correctly cites Beechum for the proposition that where evidence of other offenses is offered, the trial court must first decide that the proffered material is relevant, and then weigh its probative value against any prejudicial effect. Id. at 911 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404(b)). What Fair overlooks, however, is that to engage in this type of balancing, a court's attention must be first directed to the issue. The unfair prejudice argument is being raised for the first time on appeal. We therefore apply a plain error standard of review. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Loney, 959 F.2d 1332, 1341 (5th Cir. 1992). Our inquiry is limited under this standard: [W]hen a new factual or legal issue is raised for the first time on appeal, plain error occurs where our failure to consider the question results in 'manifest injustice.' United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1096 (5th 4 Cir. 1992) (en banc). Viewing the issue in the context of the entire case, see id., we cannot say that admission of the documents, if error, amounts to manifest injustice. Fair maintained that he did not possess the firearms, as required for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The documents Fair objected to were introduced to show that Fair did reside in the house trailer, and that he therefore exercised constructive possession of the weapons. Although other evidence was introduced on this point, we cannot say that the trial court committed plain error in allowing further proof on the possession element.