Opinion ID: 614798
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: K-1 Evidence

Text: Mireles argues that the K-1 Evidence was extrinsic evidence admitted to prove character in violation of Rule 404(b). Rule 404(b) states that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Without deciding whether the district court erred in admitting the K-1 testimony, we conclude that any error was harmless. The admission of the K-1 evidence did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks admitted). Given the other evidence offered to prove Mireles’s knowledge, it is not substantially likely that the admission of the K-1 evidence increased the risk 5 The Government separately argues that Mireles failed to preserve his arguments against the K-1 Evidence because he failed to lodge a contemporaneous objection. But Mireles’s attorney and the Government specifically referred to the K-1 Evidence during the colloquy following Mireles’s attorney’s first objection. Because “[o]nce the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence , . . . a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal,” Mireles was not required to re-object to the evidence after the district court allowed the Government to proceed following the colloquy. FED. R. EVID. 103(a). The Government also argues that the K-1 Evidence and the Job Performance Testimony were intrinsic background evidence not subject to Rule 404(b). “Evidence of an act is intrinsic when it and evidence of the crime charged are inextricably intertwined, or both acts are part of a single criminal episode, or it was a necessary preliminary to the crime charged.” United States v. Sumlin, 489 F.3d 683, 689 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 2005)). We believe it obvious that Mireles’s application for another woman to enter the United States and his job performance over the course of a year are not “inextricably intertwined” or “necessary preliminar[ies]” to the charged crimes. Id. 8 Case: 10-30722 Document: 00511623473 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/05/2011 No. 10-30722 of the jury convicting Mireles for some improper reason, such as philandering, rather than on the basis of the evidence of his knowledge that Camargo-Garcia was an illegal alien. Therefore, we find any potential error in admitting the K-1 evidence was harmless.