Opinion ID: 1459555
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nguyen's Plea Agreement Was Admissible as a Prior Inconsistent Statement.

Text: Tran first contends that the district court erred when it concluded that Nguyen's plea agreement constituted a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); United States v. Hernandez-Herrera, 273 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2001) (We review the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule for abuse of discretion.). Evidentiary rulings will be reversed for abuse of discretion only if such nonconstitutional error more likely than not affected the verdict. United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir.1994). Rule 801(d)(1)(A) provides that a trial witness's out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the statement is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition. We have stated that trial judges must retain a high degree of flexibility in deciding the exact point at which a prior statement is sufficiently inconsistent with a witness's trial testimony to permit its use in evidence. United States v. Morgan, 555 F.2d 238, 242 (9th Cir.1977). The district court ruled that the statement in Nguyen's plea agreement was inconsistent with Nguyen's in-court testimony. We conclude that the court by so ruling did not abuse its discretion. Nguyen's in-court testimony was vague and evasive. He testified that he picked up the marijuana because he was young and stupid and did some stupid things and that he was in the car on that night to pick up whatever was in the car. Nguyen conceded that Tran was with him on that night, but stated that Tran was not involved in the drug deal. Nguyen also testified that he did not remember the names of the people who told him about the marijuana transportation scheme. And although he could remember meeting with the prosecuting attorney and Agent Ingersoll the week before his testimony, he did not remember what he had told them about Tran's involvement. The portion of Nguyen's plea agreement that was admitted into evidence was inconsistent with Nguyen's reluctant and evasive in-court testimony. Under an abuse of discretion standard, it was not error for the district court to admit this statement. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's ruling admitting the plea agreement's statement.