Opinion ID: 168645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Border Patrol Arrest Photograph

Text: 9 Condrin argues the district court abused its discretion by allowing the Border Patrol photograph taken the night of his arrest into evidence. He argues the admission violated Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 404(b) because the photograph was irrelevant, prejudicial, and indicative of a prior criminal record. In addition, he contends the photograph was unnecessary for identification purposes since he was willing to stipulate to his presence in the minivan on the night of his arrest.
10 At trial, Condrin's counsel objected to the photograph's admission into evidence, calling it both prejudicial and irrelevant. The district court found the photograph neither and allowed it in for identification purposes. We review the district court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Ramirez, 63 F.3d 937, 942 (10th Cir. 1995). 11 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if it tends to make a material fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. The defense claims the photograph was irrelevant, because of its offer to stipulate to Condrin's presence in the van. We disagree. 12 Condrin was nearly bald at the time of his arrest. By trial, four months later, he had grown a full head of hair. The photograph helped explain the discrepancy between Condrin's full head of hair and witness testimony identifying him as the bald man, thereby bolstering the credibility of the witnesses who had met Condrin at their apartment and in the minivan. The defense stipulation did not solve the problem of clarifying that Condrin was the bald man in question. For instance, one witness offered a critical piece of testimony when he explained that the bald man came to the apartment to tell him that it was time to leave and then gave him instructions on how to answer the Border Patrol. The defense did not offer to stipulate that Condrin was the bald man for the purposes of these alleged acts. In fact, Condrin's contentions to the Department of Homeland Security that he was sleeping until the aliens entered the minivan is in direct contention with the witness's testimony. The photograph clarified that testimony and explained the witness was referring to Condrin. 2 13 Given our finding the photograph was relevant under Rule 401, the next question is whether the probative value of the photograph was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value under Fed.R.Evid. 403. Condrin argues prejudice outweighed probity here because the photograph suggested he had a prior arrest. 14 Condrin points first to a case from the Eleventh Circuit. In United States v. Hines, 955 F.2d 1449, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1992), the court reversed a conviction where the trial court admitted two photographic spreads from which the victim of a sexual assault had identified her assailants. Specifically, the court concluded the photographs implied prior criminal behavior by the defendants and were especially prejudicial since they were mug shots taken after the commission of other crimes. In the photographs, the men — including the defendant — were holding police identification boards and wearing prison garb. Testimony at trial also suggested the photo spreads were of known criminals and convicts. Id. at 1456. 15 Condrin also points to an unpublished case from this circuit supporting his argument. In United States v. Romero-Rojo, 67 Fed.Appx. 570 (10th Cir.2003), we reviewed a district court decision admitting a mug shot from the defendant's Alien Registration File. The photograph showed the defendant wearing a placard that read California State Prison. Although we found any error in admitting the photograph as harmless, we noted in dicta that the photograph needed to be particularly probative for its admission to have been proper given the highly prejudicial nature of the placard. Id. at 572. 16 In contrast to the photographs in those cases, the Border Patrol photograph entered into evidence here carried none of the prejudicial markers so important to those decisions. The photograph did not contain any incriminating information suggesting it was a mug shot. Condrin was wearing street clothes. No testimony was offered that the photograph arose from an arrest. Moreover, unlike those cases, the district court concluded the photographs helped remedy a risk of confusion. 17 Still, Condrin argues the photograph's style provides the indicia of criminal activity, because it looks like a mug shot. The district court did not agree with Condrin's assessment. It found no markers on the photograph identifying it as a mug shot, and the photograph was neither unflattering nor inflammatory. Furthermore, the photograph was taken in conjunction with the arrest for the charges brought in this case. Any testimony to that effect could easily have remedied potential prejudice as a jury would hardly be surprised that the person facing charges before them was first arrested and booked on those charges. It would have taken no effort on the part of the defense to bring out such facts. 18 In conclusion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the photograph's probative value outweighed any prejudice by clarifying the witness references to the bald man identified as Condrin.
19 The parties disagree whether our review of Condrin's claim that the district judge violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) should be for abuse of discretion or for plain error. The government argues Condrin made no Rule 404(b) objection at trial and we should review for plain error. United States v. Herndon, 982 F.2d 1411, 1414-15 (10th Cir.1992). Condrin contends, however, his objection to the admission of the photograph at trial encompassed Rule 404(b) because it disclosed a prior arrest, and we should judge its admissibility under an abuse of discretion standard as we did in United States v. Roberts, 88 F.3d 872, 879 (10th Cir.1996). 20 Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an objection must state the specific ground of the objection if the specific ground was not apparent from the context. Fed. R.Evid. 103. Condrin suggests his counsel's reference to the photograph as a mug shot during his objections about the prejudicial and irrelevant nature of the photograph made it clear that he was objecting to the photograph under Rule 404(b)'s exclusion of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). 21 Whatever the standard of review, the district court did not err. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, not evidence from the crime in question. We agree with the court in United States v. Mohammed, 27 F.3d 815, 822 (2d Cir. 1994), which concluded that photographs taken during defendant's arrest for case in chief do not improperly expose the jury to defendant's criminal record under 404(b). In this case, the photograph was taken by the Border Patrol on the night of Condrin's arrest for this crime. Moreover, no testimony links the photograph to Condrin's arrest, nor is there any indication the jury took it as evidence of a prior crime. Even if the photograph did suggest an arrest, it arose from his arrest in this case, not from other crimes or bad acts, and any prejudice could have been remedied by a jury instruction. 22 In short, the district court neither abused its discretion nor committed plain error in admitting the photograph.