Opinion ID: 691026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alonso's other arguments regarding the expert testimony are without merit.

Text: 44 Alonso appears to argue that the expert testimony was overly prejudicial profile evidence, and impermissibly stated an opinion regarding whether he had the requisite mental state to commit the crime, in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 704(b). We reject these arguments. 45 Testimony explaining that innocent appearing behavior may indicate criminal activity is not inherently prejudicial. See Lockett, 919 F.2d at 591 (reasoning that expert testimony is not prejudicial simply because it explains innocent actions); cf. United States v. Lim, 984 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir.) (holding that admission of inadmissible and prejudicial drug courier profile evidence is harmless if the record reveals sufficient other evidence to establish guilt), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2944, 124 L.Ed.2d 692 (1993). We hold that the agent's testimony was not unfairly prejudicial. 46 Moreover, and contrary to Alonso's arguments otherwise, Fed.R.Evid. 704(b) has no application to this case. Rule 704(b) states: No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Id. (emphasis added). Neither agent was testifying as an expert regarding Alonso's mental state. This argument therefore fails. 47 In sum, we reject all of Alonso's arguments regarding the agents' testimony.