Opinion ID: 577182
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Special Agent Gabriel

Text: 27 Appellants object to testimony by Government witness SA Gabriel that revealed that Crenshaw was in jail when first interviewed by the police. 28 Q: Pursuant to the search warrant, how did you locate the person who was named in the search warrant? 29 A: He was incarcerated at the Liberty County jail under the name of Eric James. 30 Q: Did you ask him what his true name was? 31 A: I had a name that I asked him if it was his and he stated no, his name was Eric James. 32 Defense counsel argued that SA Gabriel's testimony amounted to the introduction of evidence of other crimes or acts in contravention of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 3 The Government responded that SA Gabriel's testimony was offered only to show that he gave an alias. 33 Standing alone, this mention of incarceration is not prejudicial and does not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion. The witness did not say that Crenshaw had been jailed for charges unrelated to the sexual assault; in other words, there was no indication that the incarceration was related to any crime other than the one for which the defendant was being tried. When the defense objected to SA Gabriel's testimony, the trial judge reviewed the transcript and ruled that the most likely and reasonable interpretation of SA Gabriel's testimony was that when Crenshaw was first interviewed he was being held on suspicion of having raped Willis. This was not an unreasonable conclusion. Accordingly, we hold that failure to strike SA Gabriel's testimony was not reversible error.