Opinion ID: 198984
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Statements Made by Co-Conspirator El Gato to Hidalgo-Melendez

Text: 71 Ortiz-Figueroa alleges that certain statements indicating his participation in the April 19, 1993 caceria that resulted in the murder of Pacheco-Aponte were inadmissible hearsay. The trial court admitted the statements pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). This Court reviews that decision for plain error. See United States v. McCarthy, 961 F.2d 972, 977 (1st Cir. 1992). 72 Hearsay statements are inadmissible as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). However, pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E), a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not hearsay. To invoke this evidentiary exception, the movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy embracing both the declarant and the defendant existed, and that the declarant uttered the statement during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v.Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1180 (1st Cir. 1993); see also Bourjailyv. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76 (1987). In other words, the trial court must conclude that (1) it is more likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were members of a conspiracy when the hearsay statement was made, and (2) that the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. McCarthy, 961 F.2d 972, 977 (1st Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v.Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1977)). 73 In this case, several of the co-conspirators met at the Las Villas apartments in Dorado following the April 19, 1993 caceria. At that meeting, El Gato made several incriminating statements. Hidalgo-Melendez testified that El Gato was just like bragging about the way he had killed Pacheco and explaining, like, he sewed with bullets the person of Pacheco. El Gato also told Hidalgo-Melendez that Erick [Ortiz-Santiago] and his brother [Ortiz-Figueroa] had not been able to come downstairs from the building . . . because one of the persons that had entered the project to kill the Rosario brothers were shooting at them. The district court concluded that these statements were admissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). We agree. 74 First, the record contains ample evidence that (1) the cacerias were conducted in furtherance of the drug conspiracy, and (2) the declarant and Ortiz-Figueroa were members of that conspiracy when the hearsay statements were made. Second, El Gato's information confirmed for Hidalgo-Melendez what had transpired within the organization, who had participated in the caceria, and the people that [he ran] a risk with. As we have previously stated, the reporting of significant events by one coconspirator to another advances the conspiracy. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d at 1180. Accordingly, El Gato's statements were properly admitted into evidence. 75 Alternatively, we hold that any error in admitting El Gato's statements was harmless. Ortiz-Figueroa was arrested as he fled the murder scene at Davila. At the time of his arrest, police seized a plethora of incriminating evidence, including a bag containing firearms and ammunition, a rock of heroin or cocaine, a cellular telephone, a glove, two masks, and a firearm he was carrying on his person. Further, the record also contains co-conspirator and police testimony indicating Ortiz-Figueroa's participation in the caceria. Accordingly, we conclude that the outcome of the trial would have been the same regardless of whether El Gato's statements were admitted. 76