Opinion ID: 431092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Smith Issues

Text: 31 Although Smith was named in the original June 13, 1979 RICO indictment, he was not a subject of the massive search and arrest plan described above because he had been previously arrested on state charges. Evidence seized concurrently with that arrest furnished the basis for Counts XVII and XVIII of the superseding federal indictment. Smith appeals from a conviction under 18 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1202(a)(1) (unlawful possession of firearm by convicted felon), with which he was charged under Count XVIII of the superseding indictment. 32 On April 6, 1979, a group of local, state, and federal officers, armed with a valid arrest warrant but no search warrant, went to Smith's reported address at 2717-77th Avenue, Oakland, California. At that address, the officers found two buildings a few yards apart on the same lot surrounded by a fence and sharing a common driveway. Only the front building bore address numbers. 33 When Smith could not be found in the front building, the officers proceeded to the building in back and knocked on the door. A known member of the Hell's Angels, Raymond Baker, answered, holding a gun cleaning rod in his hand. When the officer sought entrance to search for Smith, Baker replied, Okay, but I only want one of you to come inside. A federal agent replied that the condition was unacceptable, after which Baker unlocked the door and permitted the agents to enter, saying, Don't get excited, I am cleaning my guns. The rear building later turned out to be a separate residence owned by Baker. 4 34 Smith was found in a back bedroom and was arrested. The officers seized four firearms that were within Smith's immediate reach, and eighteen other firearms found in various parts of the house during the search for Smith. Smith was convicted for possession of the four firearms found near him during the arrest.
35 Smith urges that the firearms were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the officers conducted an invalid warrantless search. Specifically, Smith contends that although Baker consented to a search, the consent was qualified to the extent of allowing in only one officer, and the limits of that consent were exceeded when other officers entered. 36 A specific exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements is that a search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is constitutionally permissible. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 858 (1973)); United States v. Henry, 615 F.2d 1223, 1230 (9th Cir.1980). As owner and permanent resident of the house, Baker clearly had authority to consent to a search of its contents. United States v. Dubrofsky, 581 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir.1978). 37 Smith maintains, however, that Baker's consent was merely a qualified one and that the search exceeded the scope of the consent because more than one officer entered the house. While it is clear that the government must conform to limitations placed upon the right granted to search, Mason v. Pulliam, 557 F.2d 426, 428-29 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Griffin, 530 F.2d 739, 744 (7th Cir.1976), Smith has cited no authority, and we have found none, in which a consent was qualified by the number of officers allowed to search, as opposed to the physical bounds of the area to which the consent was granted. See, e.g., United States v. Dichiarinte, 445 F.2d 126 (7th Cir.1971) (where defendant told police they could search his house for narcotics, police could not open and examine private papers found in the house). 38 We are unpersuaded that a consent search may be validly qualified by the number of officers allowed to search, and we so hold. Once consent has been obtained from one with authority to give it, any expectation of privacy has been lost. We seriously doubt that the entry of additional officers would further diminish the consenter's expectation of privacy, and, in the instant case, any remaining expectation of privacy was outweighed by the legitimate concern for the safety of a single officer conducting a search of a house known to contain firearms. Cf. United States v. White, 617 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1980) (motion to suppress denied because delay in search and search by agents not named in consent form were not related to the scope of the search). 39 Even if the limitation on the number of officers who could search was a valid qualification, the trial court found that by allowing entry of all the officers without protest, Baker had revoked his qualification. In United States v. Sierra-Hernandez, 581 F.2d 760 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 333, 58 L.Ed.2d 333 (1978), we held that the question of whether the scope of consent had been exceeded was a factual one, to be determined on the basis of the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 764. In this regard, the trial judge's finding will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous, United States v. Lemon, 550 F.2d 467, 472 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Page, 302 F.2d 81, 85 (9th Cir.1962) (en banc), and, on this record, we do not find such error. When the officers informed Baker of their refusal to accept his condition, Baker unlocked the door and permitted them all to enter without objection. These facts support the trial judge's conclusion that an unqualified consent to search was given.
40 Early in this consolidated trial, the parties stipulated to Smith's 1977 conviction of the felony of possession for sale of methamphetamine. Approximately two months later, the government sought to introduce the testimony of a police officer concerning the events and circumstances surrounding the conviction, including the possession by Smith of a loaded firearm. The trial judge ruled the evidence admissible, concluding it was relevant to prove the RICO charges. Smith contends that the admission of such evidence was erroneous, to which the government responds that a stipulation to an accused's prior conviction does not preclude the later admission of facts underlying the conviction. 41 We agree with Smith that once a matter is stipulated, it is conclusively proven. United States v. Houston, 547 F.2d 104, 107 (9th Cir.1976); Schlemmer v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 349 F.2d 682, 684 (9th Cir.1965). It does not follow, however, that when the fact of a conviction is stipulated, the circumstances underlying the conviction are forever immune from inquiry. 5 42 Under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible to prove such elements as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Smith was charged both with conspiracy to violate and substantive violations of the RICO statute. Those charges require proof of such elements as the existence of an enterprise, the association of the defendant with the enterprise, as well as the traditional requirements of a conspiracy. In addition, proof of the predicate acts required for establishing a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO is essential. See discussion infra, part C. 43 The district court's decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Cox, 633 F.2d 871, 874 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 159, 70 L.Ed.2d 130 (1981). Given the broad elements of the offenses with which Smith was charged, we cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in finding that the circumstances surrounding Smith's 1977 drug conviction were relevant to prove those charges.
44 Smith was convicted on Count XVIII--illegal possession of firearms--based on the four guns found within his reach at the time of his arrest. Smith asserts that the prejudicial effect of the admission into evidence of eighteen other firearms found within the house outweighed the probative value of the evidence, constituting prejudicial error under Fed.R.Evid. 403. We disagree. 45 This court will review a trial judge's decision regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Watkins, 600 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 148, 62 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979). On the record before us, we do not find such an abuse. The firearms were relevant under Rule 404(b) as proof of the predicate acts required for establishing a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. One of those predicate acts is dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(1)(A). In United States v. Martin, 599 F.2d 880, 889 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 962, 99 S.Ct. 2407, 60 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1979), we held that firearms may be relevant to show an accused's involvement in the narcotics trade. 46 In any event, it is more probable than not that the admission of the eighteen firearms did not materially affect the verdict. See United States v. Valle-Valdez, 554 F.2d 911 (9th Cir.1977) (adopting the more-probable-than-not standard of determining harmlessness of nonconstitutional error); Fed.R.Evid. 103(a) (Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) (Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.). The firearms were admitted as evidence on the RICO counts, yet Smith was not convicted on those counts. We conclude that the prejudice resulting from the admission of this evidence, if any, was minimal. 47
48 On August 7, 1980, after the jury had returned a guilty verdict on the gun possession count against Smith and a mistrial was declared as to the other three counts, the government moved for leave to dismiss the indictment. The district court granted the motion, dismissing all four counts. Three days later, the government, upon realizing that all four counts had been dismissed, moved the court to vacate its prior order and to issue a new order dismissing all counts except the firearms count on which Smith had been convicted. The district court granted the motion and modified its order, reinstating Count XVIII. 49 Smith objected to sentencing on the grounds that the district court lost jurisdiction to reinstate the indictment when it dismissed all counts. The government responds that dismissal was based on an inadvertent mistake, in that its intent was to dismiss only those counts upon which a conviction had not been obtained. We hold that the district court had jurisdiction to reinstate the indictment and that it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. 50 We note that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contain no counterpart to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which provides for relief from final judgments, orders, and other proceedings for, among other reasons, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. The Supreme Court, however, has recognized that [e]very court must be presumed to exercise those powers belonging to it which are necessary for the promotion of public justice; and we do not doubt that this court possesses the power to re-instate any cause dismissed by mistake. The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 1, 10, 6 L.Ed. 531, 534 (1827). 51 Most early courts arbitrarily held the reinstatement of a mistakenly dismissed indictment to be a proper exercise of their inherent jurisdiction to correct errors only if it was done during the same term at which the dismissal was entered. E.g., United States v. Rossi, 39 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1930); Annot., 112 A.L.R. 386 (1938). More recently, this court has reviewed district courts' correction of erroneous orders by treating them as responses to motions for reconsideration, which are timely presented if filed within the original period for review. United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 386, 390 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 78, 84 S.Ct. 553, 555, 11 L.Ed.2d 527, 531 (1964)). Accord United States v. Emens, 565 F.2d 1142, 1144-45 (9th Cir.1977). 52 In Emens, this court applied the foregoing principles to hold that a district court, during the time for appeal, holds jurisdiction to vacate its previous pretrial order dismissing an indictment. United States v. Emens, at 1145. Our decision in Emens is dispositive of this issue. As we said there, the finality of the order of the District Court dismissing the indictment was stayed by the timely filing of a petition for rehearing, [and] a fortiori such order was stayed pending resolution of the petition. Id. Although we are presented here with a post-trial dismissal and reinstatement of an indictment, we discern, on these facts, 6 no basis in reason or justice for distinguishing Emens. We cannot conceive that Congress intended, by failing to provide a criminal counterpart to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), to strip a court of its inherent jurisdiction to vacate or modify an order inadvertently made through mistake in a criminal proceeding. This is a matter within the trial judge's discretion, subject only to review by this court for abuse thereof, and we are of the opinion that on the showing made before him, the trial judge properly reinstated the indictment.
53 Smith's final contention is that the district court erred in deciding to retain the alternate jurors after the jury retired to consider its verdict. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c). Because Smith failed to preserve this issue through a timely objection below, we may review it only if it constitutes plain error. United States v. Perez, 491 F.2d 167, 173 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 858, 95 S.Ct. 106, 42 L.Ed.2d 92 (1974). We conclude that Smith has failed to establish the kind of highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights required for plain error review. United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 979, 100 S.Ct. 480, 62 L.Ed.2d 405 (1979). The alternate jurors were properly sequestered in a separate hotel from the regular jurors, separate marshals were sworn and assigned to the regular and alternate jurors, and there was no contact whatever between the regular jurors and the alternates. On these facts, the trial judge's failure to discharge the alternates under Rule 24(c), if prejudicial at all, 7 was certainly not plain error. 54 Having concluded that none of Smith's claims are meritorious, we AFFIRM his conviction. No. 80-1586. 55 We REVERSE the convictions of Rubio, Elledge, Palomar, Passaro, and Stefanson. Nos. 80-1577, 80-1584, 80-1587, 80-1592, and 80-1631. The government will file notice with the district court within 30 days if it intends to reprosecute. 56 The motion of the appellee, United States of America, to stay issuance of the mandate pursuant to Rule 41(b) for a period of 30 days pending application for a writ of certiorari is GRANTED. 57