Opinion ID: 3044975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Error Issues

Text: 19 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 20 of 25 Appellant’s remaining arguments relate to the propriety of the District Court’s evidentiary rulings and various comments made by the court, the prosecutor, and certain government witnesses.
Appellant claims that the District Court erred so frequently at trial that it violated his constitutional right to present a defense. This argument is essentially a hodgepodge of Appellant’s previously-discussed attacks on the District Court’s jury charge, coupled with an attack on several of the District Court’s evidentiary rulings. Appellant essentially claims that the District Court prevented him from presenting evidence at trial to establish the defense that he engaged Degraves out of concern for his father’s health. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000). Appellant’s contention is meritless. Testimony relating to R.A. Gutierrez’s health was introduced several times throughout the trial. R.A. Gutierrez’s wife, Nancy Gutierrez, testified that R.A. Gutierrez had undergone three different surgeries regarding the removal of his colon and had experienced complications, DE 60:181-82, that he was in the hospital for more than thirty-three days, DE 60:192, and that his last surgery was approximately less than a month before he went on the cruise, DE 60:183. R.A. Gutierrez himself testified that he had three 20 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 21 of 25 surgeries prior to his cruise, DE 60:205-206, that he was weak and still recovering from his surgeries at the time of the incident, DE 60:214-15, and that Appellant tried to save his life by engaging Degraves because Appellant knew he was in ill health, DE 60:228. Appellant also testified on this issue. He indicated that he was aware of his father’s health condition, DE 61:5, that he was concerned for his father’s health when he ran after Degraves because his father had just had major surgery, DE 61:11, and that he acted because he was afraid for his father’s life, DE 61:34-35. Appellant’s argument is simply not supported by the record. The jury was fully aware that R.A. Gutierrez was ill and that Appellant believed that he was defending his father. Appellant has also failed to show that the District Court abused its discretion when it limited witness testimony out of concern that it was being offered for the improper purpose of evoking sympathy from the jury. The record demonstrates that the District Court only limited testimony relating to R.A. Gutierrez’s medical condition when it lacked relevance or was duplicative. E.g., DE 60:192, 206, 218; DE 61:5. The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it limited testimony. 12 12 The District Court also did not abuse its discretion when it precluded defense counsel from mentioning R.A. Gutierrez’s medical condition in his opening statement. Evidence relating 21 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 22 of 25 B. Statements by the District Judge Appellant contends that the District Court made inappropriate statements at trial that made the jury believe that R.A. Gutierrez’s health was not relevant to a defense to the charged crime. The only statement the District Judge made before the jury on this topic related to a curative instruction issued in response to Nancy Gutierrez’s testimony. The District Court advised the jury that “sympathy has no place in this case at all. You just decide the facts not based upon sympathy for or against either party.” DE 60:191. Not only did this statement not prejudice Appellant, it is a correct statement of the law. The other statements cited by Appellant occurred prior to trial, DE 60:4, and at sentencing, DE 86:9—and thus would have no bearing on the jury’s determination on whether Appellant presented a viable defense. Moreover, the prejudicial nature of these statements is a moot point because Appellant failed to request an instruction for a defense based on R. A. Gutierrez’s health. Thus, the jury never considered the defense—or any statements related to its adequacy—in the first place. C. Statements by the Government’s Witnesses Appellant next argues that the District Court improperly allowed Degraves to testify that Appellant was not acting in self-defense. DE 61:45. Appellant first to R.A. Gutierrez’s condition was presented at trial, and defense counsel referred to his condition repeatedly during his closing argument. DE 61:78, 80. 22 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 23 of 25 contends that Degraves’s statement violated Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), which forbids an expert witness from testifying on whether a defendant possessed the “mental state or condition that constitutes an element of a crime charged or of a defense.” Appellant alternatively argues that even if Degraves was only testifying as a lay witness, the testimony was improper under Federal Rule of Evidence 701(c) because Degraves was providing an opinion based on specialized knowledge. Finally, Appellant argues that the statement was inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 701(b), 702(b), and 403 because Degraves’s opinion was not helpful and merely told the jury what result to reach. Because Appellant did not object to Degraves’s statement at trial, we review the District Court’s admission of his testimony for plain error. United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1325 n.11 (11th Cir. 2011). Under this standard, we will not correct an error raised for the first time on appeal unless there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affects substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Appellant’s arguments fail because he cannot show that the admission of this testimony affected his substantial rights. As discussed above in part II.C, Appellant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because he failed to request one and affirmatively expressed hesitation about including the instruction in the jury charge. Because the jury did not ultimately decide whether Appellant acted in 23 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 24 of 25 self-defense, his substantial rights were not affected by Degraves’s testimony on the subject. Therefore, the District Court did not commit plain error in permitting this testimony. 13 D. Statements by the Prosecution Finally, Appellant contends that the District Court permitted the government to make improper statements when it referenced Appellant’s conduct as an assault and an attack. DE 60:123 (“Now, after you were assaulted, or after you were allegedly assaulted, after you were attacked, did you go to the hospital?”); DE 60:140 (“On the day that the Defendant attacked you, did you write that report?”); DE 156-57 (“Did you see anybody getting attacked? . . . Did you see the Defendant, the person that attacked, did you see that person here today.”). Appellant failed to object to the government’s comments. Absent an objection, we review comments by a prosecutor for plain error. A prosecutor’s comments warrant a new trial only where the statement is improper and prejudices the defendant’s substantive rights. United States v. O’Keefe, 461 F.3d 1338, 1350 (11th Cir. 2006). A defendant’s substantive rights are prejudicially affected when a reasonable probability arises that, but for the 13 Appellant also contends that the District Court erred when it permitted a government witness to testify that Agent Degraves “presented with a history of being . . . accosted, hit by a criminal evidently.” DE 60:170. Appellant objected to the witness’s use of the word criminal. The District Court did not strike the testimony but instead gave a curative instruction—informing the witness to use caution with his language and clarifying to the jury that no one had been convicted. We find no abuse of discretion here, and no prejudice. 24 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 25 of 25 prosecutor’s statements, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Id. Based on our review of the record, we find no such reasonable probability here.