Opinion ID: 669784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Bad Act Testimony

Text: 18 Ojeda argues that the government impermissibly cross-examined him on his prior use of another name. He testified he had used another name in the past and was asked on cross-examination, when did you use the name Pedro Flores Vera? II Tr. at 238. Ojeda responded, I do not recall when. Id. A timely objection to this testimony was made by Ojeda's counsel. Id. As additional evidentiary error, Ojeda argues that the court erred when it allowed the government to call rebuttal witness Beisemeyer to the stand. Ojeda's counsel, however, failed to object to the admission of this testimony. 4 Arguing that the admission of the cross-examination testimony and the rebuttal testimony was prejudicial and irrelevant, Ojeda requests a new trial. We find no reversible error. 19 The district court properly permitted the government to cross-examine Ojeda regarding his use of another name. Specific instances of prior conduct may ... in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination.... Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). Thus, the issue for this court is whether Ojeda's past use of another name is probative for truthfulness. We believe it is. If a man would lie about his name, a jury may reasonably infer that he would lie about other matters, even on the witness stand. See Lyda v. United States, 321 F.2d 788, 793 (9th Cir.1963). Therefore, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. 20 As to Ojeda's contention that the district court erred when it admitted Beisemeyer's testimony because it was irrelevant and prejudicial, we decline to review this claim. Without a finding of plain error, Ojeda's failure to object to Beisemeyer's testimony precludes our review. 5 See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1) (a timely objection on the record required for a finding of error). We find no plain error affecting Ojeda's substantial rights. 6