Opinion ID: 589445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence regarding vehicle ownership

Text: 37 Bantula makes several arguments to support his contention that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence a DMV document showing that he once owned a car with a secret compartment which was registered to Perez. 38 The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the DMV record. First, Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 was satisfied, because the record shows that government counsel Clymer gave the document to defense counsel the day after Clymer gained custody of the document from the Torrance Police and the DMV. Second, Bantula did not raise his FRE 404(b) objection at trial. Given the weight of the other evidence against him, admission of the DMV record was not plain error on this basis and did not affect the outcome. See United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 569-70 (9th Cir.1986). Third, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the DMV record was more probative than prejudicial under Fed.R.Evid. 403. The jury had already heard testimony from Officer Packard, without objection from Bantula, regarding Bantula's prior ownership of the car. In any event, even assuming the court erred in admitting the DMV document, Packard's earlier testimony about Bantula's ownership of the car and the weight of the other evidence against Bantula would render any error harmless. Cf. United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 740 (9th Cir.1985) (reversing conviction for erroneous admission of prior bad act where evidence against defendant was only tenuous). 39