Opinion ID: 418829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of the Trip

Text: 11 On redirect, the Government elicited testimony from Maguire regarding a trip that Maguire and Duff planned to take together with Maguire's new wife and Duff's girl friend. Maguire testified that after he had solicited a bid from Yeargin, Duff had told him that they should plan a trip and that Yeargin will foot the bill for me and you and your wife. (Record on Appeal Vol. 3 at 165). Maguire planned the trip, but at the last moment he was unable to attend. The entire trip was paid for by the appellant. 12 The appellant objected to the admission of this evidence contending it was evidence of other criminal acts for which the appellant had not been indicted. The trial court overruled the objection stating the testimony has to do with the relationship between the parties about which you inquired. On direct, the Government attempted to prove that Maguire and Duff were more than business partners; that in fact they were fairly good friends. On cross-examination, appellant sought to prove just the opposite, that Maguire and Duff had no personal relationship whatsoever. Accordingly, on redirect the Government went into the testimony about the proposed trip to show that Maguire and Duff were close personal friends. There was no suggestion by the Government or by Maguire that payment for the trip by appellant was improper or illegal. 13 Appellant interprets this evidence as coming in under other acts evidence. However, the evidence was not admitted to prove other crimes, but rather to demonstrate the relationship between Duff and Maguire. This evidence came in under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 which states: 14 Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 15 Historically, it is the function of the trial court to determine the admissibility of the evidence, and thus, admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Hearod, 499 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir.1974); see also Shale v. United States, 388 F.2d 616 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 984, 89 S.Ct. 456, 21 L.Ed.2d 445 (1968). The decision of the trial court to admit relevant evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion or the trial court's determination was clearly erroneous. United States v. 110 Bars of Silver, 508 F.2d 799 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 861, 96 S.Ct. 118, 46 L.Ed.2d 89 (1975), United States v. Allison, 474 F.2d 286 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 851, 95 S.Ct. 91, 42 L.Ed.2d 82 (1974). 16 The relationship between Duff and Maguire was of great importance in establishing the conspiracy. We find no error in the trial court's admission of the testimony surrounding the proposed trip. 3