Opinion ID: 2837800
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opinion on culpable mental state

Text: Monell also argues that Detective Mercurio impermissibly opined on Monell's culpable mental state, the intent to distribute. See Fed. R. Evid. 704(b) (In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.). Monell takes issue with the following exchange: [Prosecutor]: All right. Detective Mercurio, based on your review of all of the items in this case, have you formed an opinion if the items are more consistent with drug distribution or personal use of the items? Have you formed that opinion? [Detective Mercurio]: Yes. [Prosecutor]: What is your opinion? [Defense counsel]: Objection. [Court]: Overruled. [Detective Mercurio]: Based on, you know, the barricade on the door, the firearm being right next to the door, you know, three -- you have three digital scales, basically three different size digital scales, a small one, you know, like I said, you have the firearm, you have 37, in my opinion, 37 bags, $40 bags. No user would buy 37 $40 bags. When the prosecutor asked Detective Mercurio to explain his last comment, the detective clarified that it would not be economical - 22 - for a user to buy that amount of drugs in street-level, rather than bulk, quantities. Monell now argues that the [n]o user would buy 37 $40 bags statement, combined with the recitation of the evidence of distribution, amounted to an inadmissible expert opinion on his mental state.11 Though Monell objected, it is clear from the transcript that he objected on different grounds. Just before the exchange quoted above, the prosecutor attempted to ask the same question to elicit Detective Mercurio's opinion about drug distribution, at which point defense counsel objected on the basis that the testimony would be outside Detective Mercurio's expertise, but did not object on Rule 704(b) grounds.12 Because 11In his reply brief, Monell also challenges on Rule 704(b) grounds Detective Mercurio's testimony that certain pieces of evidence were consistent with drug distribution. Because this argument debuted in his reply brief, it is waived. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 299 (1st Cir. 2000) (We have held, with a regularity bordering on the monotonous, that issues advanced for the first time in an appellant's reply brief are deemed waived.). 12 Defense counsel objected as follows: Beyond the objections that his testimony that that is not consistent with personal use, he may have been qualified as an expert with respect to whether this is consistent with distribution, but he has no basis in his education or training with respect to addiction, with respect to use, and so for him to offer an opinion that it's not consistent with personal use goes beyond his expertise and his training and for that reason should be excluded. - 23 - Monell did not object on the basis he now presses on appeal, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Iwuala, 789 F.3d 1, 5, 7 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)). It is by no means obvious that Detective Mercurio's comment that [n]o user would buy 37 $40 bags of crack cocaine was an opinion of Monell's mental state. Rather it was simply an observation that drug users do not buy large quantities in bulk in street-level units. While it is true that a jury might in turn infer something about Monell's purpose in possessing the drugs, that is precisely how one proves intent in crimes where it is relevant (and no admission is available). In short, if there was error here, then it certainly was not plain. See United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain error review requires, among other things, a clear or obvious error). In one sentence of his reply brief, Monell repeats this objection to Detective Mercurio's testimony. To the extent that Monell seeks to challenge on appeal Detective Mercurio's qualifications, he waived that challenge by waiting until his reply brief to raise it, see Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc., 208 F.3d at 299, and then doing so perfunctorily, see Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2011). - 24 -