Opinion ID: 2976626
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sexual Relationship with Morales

Text: Hughes testified that the defendant told her during an argument that he had a sexual relationship with Morales “since day one.” Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial on the grounds that injecting incest into the trial was unfairly prejudicial. The government argued that this newly discovered evidence was admissible because the defendant had “opened the door” to it by portraying Morales as having a one-sided love interest in the defendant. We have recognized that when a party “opens the door” on an issue by eliciting prejudicial or inadmissible testimony, the district court may in its discretion allow evidence on the same issue “to rebut any false impression that might have resulted from the earlier admission.” United States v. Segines, 17 F.3d 847, 856 (6th Cir. 1994). The district court allowed the evidence, explaining that the relationship between [Morales] and Noel Colon has been squarely placed in issue in this case in front of this jury. They have heard a lot of testimony regarding Maria’s relationship with the defendant, and this just further amplifies it. Does it add an additional level? Yes. But it doesn’t go to the point where I believe a mistrial is warranted. It gives context to the intertwining of the relationship, that is, the defendant, Maria and now Sara Hughes, to give a full context for this jury to consider when they are making decisions about credibility. It was the defendant who put his relationship with Morales at issue by arguing that she “set him up” because she was jealous of his relationship with Hughes. The testimony to that point No. 06-4333 14 left some ambiguity about the basis for the jealousy—reflected in the defendant’s statement on the recorded call that Morales fell in love with him and that “it was wrong.” Even so, the testimony, including much of the recorded call, also implied that there was more than a familial relationship between defendant and his adult niece. Defendant may have preferred leaving the ambiguity, but it was not error to allow Hughes to complete the picture of the relationship between defendant and Morales and the basis for Morales to be jealous of Hughes. 3. “Unstable” After Hughes described Morales as “unstable,” the government asked on redirect about the defendant, and Hughes answered that she sometimes thought that he was unstable as well. Defendant’s objection was overruled. The government argues that “when a party questions a witness on a subject, even though that subject may not be strictly relevant to the case, the party cannot complain on appeal if the opposing part subsequently introduces evidence on the same subject.” United States v. Touloumis, 771 F.2d 235, 241 (7th Cir. 1985). The evidence, however, was not “on the same subject.” Nonetheless, error in the admission of such evidence is harmless unless it is more probable than not that the error materially affected the verdict. Daniel, 134 F.3d at 1262. Here, we cannot conclude that evidence that both Morales and the defendant were unstable materially affected the verdict. AFFIRMED. No. 06-4333 15 Suhrheinrich, J., concurring: I cannot agree that the evidence relating to the assault on Christmas Day 2003 was properly admitted under Rule 404(b). This incident, which occurred one and a half years prior to the crime at issue, is only relevant to establish Colon’s allegedly violent character to prove action in conformity therewith at the time of the incident, i.e., that Colon must have been the aggressor during the struggle with Morales. Colon’s conduct in the Christmas Day assault was not probative of his intent or motive to possess a firearm during the struggle with Morales on June 5, 2005. Indeed, the majority does not explain how the December 2003 incident established intent or motive, but simply repeats the language of the Rule. In reality, the December 2003 incident simply shows that Colon has a violent character and that he frequently beat Morales and Hughes. Notwithstanding, I concur because the error was harmless. See United States v. Thomas, 49 F.3d 253, 259 (6th Cir. 1995). The record supports Colon’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) given Colon’s stipulation to his felon status, Colon’s own statement to Officer Cook that he had a gun that he had wrestled away from Morales, the testimony of the responding officers Gulas and Cortes that Morales had a gun on his person, Officer Gulas’s testimony that Morales appeared to be trying to escape from Colon and that Colon gave no indication at the time that he was acting in self defense, and Agent Hopkins’ undisputed testimony and ammunition were manufactured outside Ohio. Thus, any error in admitting evidence of Colon’s prior acts of violence was harmless.