Opinion ID: 788124
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juan Mendez's Testimony

Text: 34 Juan Mendez's testimony that Ramirez-Robles was selling methamphetamine to him about the time of the charged transaction is analyzed under the same rubric as the prior convictions. Prove a Material Element 35 Mendez's testimony shows that Ramirez-Robles was actively selling methamphetamine during the time period of the charged transaction. Mendez testified that Ramirez-Robles fronted the methamphetamine to him and that Mendez paid him for the methamphetamine at the house where the charged transaction took place at about the time of the charged transaction. This is relevant to impeach Ramirez-Robles's testimony that he was not dealing methamphetamine at that time. Similar to Charged Conduct 36 Although the sales to Juan Mendez were on a smaller scale than the charged transaction, they were of methamphetamine; therefore they are sufficiently similar to the charged conduct. The sales to Mendez also involved the same transaction method of fronting the methamphetamine as was used with Guthrie in the charged transaction. Based on Sufficient Evidence 37 Juan Mendez's testimony is uncorroborated, but the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator is sufficient to uphold a conviction. Lopez, 803 F.2d at 973. Although Juan Mendez is a buyer rather than a co-conspirator, his complicity in an illegal transaction renders his relationship with Ramirez-Robles functionally similar to that of a co-conspirator for this analysis. Not Too Remote 38 Because the sales to Mendez and the charged transaction occurred almost concurrently, the actions are not too remote. Rule 403 Balancing 39 Mendez's testimony has a fairly high probative value. It shows that Ramirez-Robles had the knowledge necessary to complete the charged transaction and that he had the intent to do so. It is also relevant to impeach Ramirez-Robles, who testified that he was not currently dealing methamphetamine. The prejudicial impact of Mendez's testimony is weakened by the admissibility of Ramirez-Robles's prior conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale. The prejudicial effect of the testimony is thus outweighed by the probative value of testimony. The district court did not err in admitting Juan Mendez's testimony.