Opinion ID: 867684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of prior crime

Text: 5 Case: 12-10968 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 Page: 6 of 14 Estrella argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior robbery because the robbery was not sufficiently similar to the robbery of Detective Lebid, and the victim’s out-of-court identification of him as the armed robber in the prior robbery was unreliable. His arguments fail. Estrella’s intent was a key issue in the prior robbery. His sole argument with respect to the robbery was that he lacked any intent to participate in it and that he had merely been present when his co-defendant Martinez attempted to commit the robbery. Thus, the evidence of the robbery was relevant to prove Estrella’s intent to rob Detective Lebid and also to establish the nature of his relationship with Martinez. The relevant similarity was not the specific manner in which they had committed the earlier robbery, but that they had committed the earlier robbery together. This indicated a partnership in crime. Thus, it was highly relevant and probative, and the admission of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially in light of the district court’s instruction to the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. As to Estrella’s other contention, the district court correctly found that the out-of-court identification was reliable. First, the showup was not unduly suggestive, and it was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065, 1102 (11th Cir. 2001) (setting out the two-step analysis in assessing the constitutionality of a trial court’s decision to admit an out- 6 Case: 12-10968 Date Filed: 05/13/2013 Page: 7 of 14 of-court identification). The victim testified at the evidentiary hearing that he had clearly seen Estrella during the robbery and recognized him afterwards. Additionally, at the evidentiary hearing and trial, other witnesses identified Estrella as the robber. Estrella, therefore, has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the prior robbery.