Opinion ID: 159779
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Other Hospitals Evidence

Text: 38 The indictment alleged that all seven indicted conspirators engaged in one broad conspiracy to allow the LaHues to enter into illegal arrangements with Baptist and six other hospitals. At the close of the government's case, however, the district court ruled that the evidence failed to prove McClatchey, Anderson, or Keel were at all part of a conspiracy involving the six other hospitals. The district court thus limited all evidence relating to these six other hospitals to the charges against the LaHues. In granting McClatchey's motion for a new trial, the district court concluded that its narrowing of the conspiracy charge against McClatchey constituted a variance and that the spillover from the other hospitals evidence prejudiced him. The district court stated, however, that [w]ere this factor standing alone, the court would not grant Mr. McClatchey a new trial. 39 Again, this court concludes that any variance caused by the narrowing of the conspiracy charge did not substantially prejudice McClatchey. In United States v. Powell, this court stated, 40 A defendant's substantial rights are affected if the jury determines a defendant's guilt by relying on evidence adduced against coconspirators who were involved in separate conspiracies. Relevant factors include: 1) whether the proliferation of separate conspiracies in the case affected the jury's ability to segregate each defendant's individual actions and participation; 2) whether the variance caused confusion among the jurors as to the limited use of certain evidence; and 3) the strength of the evidence underlying the conviction. 41 982 F.2d 1422, 1431-32 (10th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). First, the jury's acquittal of Ronald LaHue on the charge of soliciting and receiving bribes from two of the other hospitals and its acquittal of Keel on all charges based on the statute of limitations strongly indicates that it was perfectly capable of segregating and separately evaluating each defendant's individual actions and participation. Second, the district court repeatedly instructed the jury both during and at the end of the trial not to consider the other hospitals evidence against anyone but the LaHues, thus insuring the jury's understanding of the limited use of that evidence. Third, though this court concedes that the case against McClatchey was relatively close, as discussed above the government did present sufficient evidence apart from the other hospitals evidence to prove McClatchey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See supra Section III.A. Finally, this court has held that there is no fatal variance where a defendant is convicted upon evidence which tends to show a narrower scheme than that contained in the indictment, provided that the narrower scheme is fully included within the indictment. Ailsworth, 138 F.3d at 849 (quotation omitted). The narrowing of the conspiracy charge against McClatchey, therefore, did not constitute a fatal variance warranting a new trial.