Opinion ID: 3185485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jose Peña’s Appeal

Text: Jose Peña argues first, that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that he received anything of pecuniary value in exchange for committing the murders. This argument fails for substantially the same reasons as discussed above with respect to Hector Peña. Bernardo Sabino testified that, before the murders, he told Jose Peña and an accomplice that “there was going to be a job for them,” and explained “what [Acosta] wanted to do” and that “[Acosta] was willing to pay for [it].” Tr. 636–37. Ramon Flores testified that Jose Peña and the other conspirators received an up-front payment before the murders, and Sabino testified that he paid them the balance after the murders were complete. This evidence is more than sufficient to support the jury’s verdict with respect to the pecuniary value element of 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). Second, Jose Peña argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence that he sold cocaine for Solid Gold and that he once enforced a drug debt owed to Solid Gold. Jose Peña argues that this evidence was inadmissible under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence because the charged conduct — the murders of Jose Suarez and Juan Carmona — was unconnected to Solid Gold. Before trial, the district court initially denied the government’s motion in limine to admit this evidence. However, in its motion for 8 reconsideration, the government argued that the evidence was relevant to establish the relationship of trust and criminality between Jose Peña and the members of Solid Gold. This context was relevant, the government argued, to explain why Jose Peña would openly discuss his participation in the Suarez and Carmona murders with cooperating witnesses who were members of Solid Gold. The district court then ruled the evidence admissible. Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of prior bad acts is “not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character,” but “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We have “adopted an ‘inclusionary’ approach to other act evidence under Rule 404(b), which allows such evidence to be admitted for any purpose other than to demonstrate criminal propensity.” United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Edwards, 342 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2003)). To determine whether such evidence was properly admitted, we consider “whether (1) it was offered for a proper purpose; (2) it was relevant to a material issue in dispute; (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if so requested by the defendant.” Id. As with other evidentiary rulings, we review for abuse of discretion. Id. at 155. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of Jose Peña’s past acts. The evidence was admitted for the proper purpose of explaining the “mutual trust” between Jose Peña and the cooperating witnesses who testified about incriminating statements that he made to them. See United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir. 1993). It was relevant to the cooperating witnesses’ credibility, which the defendants 9 repeatedly attacked on cross-examination and in summation. Furthermore, any prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value, as the evidence about Jose Peña’s drug-related activities was not “more sensational or disturbing” than the conduct with which he was charged. United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990). We have considered the defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons given, we AFFIRM the judgments of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 10