Opinion ID: 156210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Alias

Text: 19 Aragon next contends the trial court erred by denying her motion in limine requesting that all evidence regarding her use of an alias be excluded. In her motion, Aragon sought to exclude thirteen evidentiary items containing her alias, including a driver's license, motel billing records, vehicle records, money grams, and various receipts. The district court denied her motion, and the items were admitted at trial, over Aragon's objections. 20 On appeal, Aragon asserts the items were never connected with any of the other alleged [illegal] acts, were not inextricably intertwined as part of the charged criminal episode, and were not necessary to complete the story of the crime charged. Aragon therefore argues the district court abused its discretion in admitting the items because they were irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The government first argues that because Aragon objected to the introduction of the items at trial solely on the basis of relevance, she has waived her objection based on Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Alternatively, the government argues the items were admissible, as they were all relevant to proving [Aragon's] knowledge and role in the conspiracy. 21 This court need not decide whether Aragon waived her objection based on Rule 403 because we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. A district court has broad discretion in balancing the probative value of evidence against its potential prejudicial effect, and will be reversed only on a showing of abuse of that discretion. United States v. Scarborough, 128 F.3d 1373, 1378 (10th Cir.1997). 22 Contrary to Aragon's assertion, the government did tie her use of the alias to the conspiracy. For example, all uses of the alias occurred during the time frame of the conspiracy and, more specifically, during the four months prior to the date she was arrested. Aragon used the alias to purchase a vehicle that was used by other members of the conspiracy. During a search of the vehicle, officers found a semiautomatic handgun, $7000 cash, four throwing stars, and a night vision scope. Cf. United States v. Copeland, 51 F.3d 611, 617 (6th Cir.1995) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting receipts with defendant's alias and noting receipts tied defendant to certain automobiles referred to in testimony related to the drug conspiracy period). Aragon also used the alias to rent a motel room; during surveillance of the motel, officers observed numerous vehicles linked to the conspiracy. This court therefore agrees with the government that Aragon's use of the alias was relevant to show, among other things, her knowledge of and role in the conspiracy. Cf. United States v. Glass, 128 F.3d 1398, 1408 (10th Cir.1997) (A defendant's use of an alias to conceal his identity from law enforcement officers is relevant as proof of consciousness of guilt.); United States v. Walcott, 61 F.3d 635, 638 (8th Cir.1995) ([The defendant's] use of aliases and other conduct enlisted to hide his identity and whereabouts were consistent with involvement in the drug trade.). 23 Although relevant, Aragon's use of an alias would be inadmissible under Rule 403 if its probative value was substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Aragon has failed to explain, however, how the admission of the items containing her alias unfairly prejudiced her. Aragon apparently argues that the items were prejudicial because they were not connected in any way to the conspiracy, an argument which we have already rejected. Under the circumstances, this court finds no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence. Cf. Scarborough, 128 F.3d at 1380 (finding no abuse of discretion in admitting driver's licenses with defendant's alias because licenses were relevant to link[ ] defendant to the crime).