Opinion ID: 722206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Costello's July Work Schedule and Dates of Losses

Text: 11 Defendant next argues that the district court erred by permitting the Government to introduce evidence of Richard Costello's July work schedule in order to counter the defense's theory that Costello was responsible for food stamp losses occurring in the post office. The Government maintains that error, if any, was invited by the Defendant. See United States v. Hegwood, 977 F.2d 492, 496 (9th Cir.1992) ([W]hen the defendant 'opens the door' to testimony by raising it for the first time himself, he cannot complain about subsequent government inquiry into that issue.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 913 (1993); United States v. Segal, 852 F.2d 1152, 1155 (9th Cir.1988) (invited error doctrine entitles the government to pursue inquiry into matter if evidence thereon was first introduced by the defendant). Although technically, evidence of theft or losses in July was first introduced by the Government in its case-in-chief, it was Defendant who suggested to the jury that Costello was engaged in an ongoing scheme in which he framed other supervisory employees, including Defendant. By allowing specific references to Costello's work schedule and dates of July losses, the district court provided the Government an opportunity to rebut the inference. Cf. United States v. Rosse, 418 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir.1969) (challenged testimony of previous postal thefts had developed an independent vitality and was properly admitted to rebut defense theory that defendant framed by postal inspector), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 998 (1970). The Government's rebuttal evidence concerning the frame-up defense was therefore proper. 12 Moreover, a careful review of the transcript reveals that the district court was mindful of protecting Defendant against undue prejudice, and attempted to do so by precluding evidence of her July work schedule under Rule 404(b). However, Defendant herself introduced evidence of her July work schedule as support for her theory that someone else, namely Costello, was responsible for all food stamp losses. But for Defendant's theory that she was framed, references to specific dates of July losses or Costello's work schedule would likely not have been allowed in by the district court. 13 Significantly, Defendant failed to request a limiting instruction from the district court to minimize the potential prejudice resulting from the introduction of evidence of the July thefts, so that any error from failure to give the instruction is waived. Brocklesby v. United States, 767 F.2d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1101 (1986); see also United States v. Brown, 562 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.1977) (failure to give limiting instruction not reversible error). 6 14 The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the introduction of Richard Costello's July work schedule and the specific dates of July food stamp losses.