Opinion ID: 177996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Admissibility of Brad Schmeh's affidavit

Text: Lastly, Bahrani contends the district court erred in admitting at the hide export certificates trial an affidavit from an individual named Brad Schmeh. As previously noted, [w]e review a [district] court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, according deference to a district court's familiarity with the details of the case and its greater experience in evidentiary matters. Frederick, 616 F.3d at 1082-83 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time of trial, Schmeh was the owner and operations manager of Interlogistix, Inc., a Denver-based freight forwarder... responsible for facilitating the transportation and export of ConAgra Beef Company's animal hides from its various beef plants, [sic] to various importing countries. Aplt.App. at 6. Schmeh's affidavit outlined the export process employed by Interlogistix. Id. at 6-7. The affidavit then discussed the topic of errors in and changes to hide export certificates: 10. Occasionally, it comes to my attention that I have made a typographical error or otherwise included incorrect information on the export certificate, such as a transposition of numbers in the container number, or a consignee's name spelled incorrectly. I then contact the USDA veterinarian, give him the certificate number, and request permission from ConAgra to make changes. Once I have received permission, I fax a copy of the changed certificate to the veterinarian. An example of this type of request and permission is illustrated in the email attached hereto as Exhibit 2, which was sent to and received from Dr. Diemer of APHIS in Lakewood, Colorado. 11. On every occasion that I have requested permission to make corrections on an export certificate, the APHIS veterinarian has granted that permission. 12. In some circumstances, I do obtain a replacement or in-lieu-of certificate, rather than making changes directly on the certificate. Those circumstances would include situations where the customer needs an entirely different shipment, or if the weights used for the hides are completely wrong as opposed to one digit being incorrect or transposed. Id. at 7-8. The attached e-mail messages referred to in Schmeh's affidavit were between Schmeh and Dr. Ian Stewart, a USDA veterinarian, and between Schmeh and a ConAgra employee. Id. at 10. In the first e-mail message, Schmeh stated to Stewart, in pertinent part: Please note that ConAgra needs to change a digit on a container number.... Once they have made the change, I will fax a copy for your file. Please just respond saying ok. Id. The second e-mail message, from Dr. Stewart to Schmeh, stated simply: OK. Id. In the third and final message, Schmeh forwarded a copy of the first two messages to a ConAgra employee and wrote: Here is the ok from the USDA to change the H/C [hide certificate]. Please fax me the revised copy on Monday. Id. Prior to trial, Bahrani moved to exclude both the affidavit and the exhibit on the grounds of relevance and hearsay. The district court denied that motion. Bahrani then moved to reconsider, this time agreeing to stipulate to foundation for the exhibit, but continuing to object to admission of the affidavit. The district court denied the motion to reconsider and admitted both the affidavit and accompanying exhibit pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). [11] Bahrani contends the district court erred in admitting the affidavit pursuant to Rule 803(3), arguing that factual recitations of events and the belief as to the cause of the events do not meet the 803(3) exception. Aplt. Br. at 63 (citing Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642 (10th Cir.2006)). We agree. Rule 803(3) permits the admission of [a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health).... Fed.R.Evid. 803(3). In other words, Rule 803(3) permits an out-of-court statement regarding a declarant's then-existing state of mind where the statement serves as evidence of the declarant's intent to perform an act. Allen, 468 F.3d at 659. Schmeh's affidavit does not fit within this exception because it does not outline Schmeh's then-existing state of mind, nor was it presented by defendants for the purposes of evidencing Schmeh's intent to perform a particular act. Moreover, although defendants argue on appeal that Schmeh's affidavit was not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, Aplee. Br. at 50, that is refuted by the record. Indeed, the record indicates that Schmeh's affidavit was offered by defendants precisely to demonstrate, at least in part, that its freight forwarders routinely requested and received permission from USDA veterinarians to make changes to hide export certificates. The question then becomes whether the erroneous admission of Schmeh's affidavit was harmless. Evidentiary errors are not grounds for reversal unless the aggrieved party shows the admission of the evidence was not harmless. U.S. Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Pilatus Bus. Aircraft, Ltd., 582 F.3d 1131, 1149 (10th Cir.2009). Bahrani's only assertion of prejudice is that, [b]y allowing the affidavit, the [district] court insulated Mr. Schmeh from cross-examination where he would have been forced to admit: it was obvious (to him) no changes were allowed without permission; the veterinarian could have denied permission; and withholding permission would have required a replacement certificate and payment of a fee. Aplt. Br. at 63 (italics in original). But Bahrani's counsel was able to argue these points to the jury at the hide export certificates trial, notwithstanding the fact that Schmeh did not appear as a witness. [12] Moreover, as noted by defendants, Schmeh's description of how he handled certificate changes was echoed by several other witnesses without objection from Bahrani. Thus, we conclude the district court's error was harmless. B. Appeal No. 09-1180 (Defendants' cross-appeal) Defendants assert three issues in their cross-appeal, all of which focus on the hide export certificates portion of the remand proceedings. First, defendants contend the district court erred in entering judgment against them in light of the fact that the jury at the hide export certificates trial found, in response to a special interrogatory on the verdict form, that no hide export certificates were changed by defendants' employees for the purpose of avoiding an obligation to the government. Second, defendants contend that the fines and penalties assessed against them at the hide export certificates trial violate the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. Third, defendants contend the district court erred in failing to exclude evidence of certificates that were changed by defendants after the period of Bahrani's employment with ConAgra. As outlined in greater detail below, we agree with defendants that the jury's findings at the hide export certificates trial entitled them to judgment as a matter of law on Bahrani's hide export certificates claims. Consequently, it is unnecessary for us to address the remaining two issues asserted by defendants in their cross-appeal.