Opinion ID: 202635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Prior Marijuana Theft

Text: 5 Rivera first challenges the admission in evidence of the trial testimony that Perez heard that Rivera had once stolen marijuana Rivera had seized during a police operation at a housing project. Rivera relies on the fact that his alleged marijuana theft had no demonstrated relationship ( e.g., common coconspirators or temporal proximity) to the conspiracy to commit the May 9, 2003, heroin theft. See United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 119-20 (1st Cir.2000). 6 Normally, we review the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence only for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Landrau-Lopez, 444 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 181, 166 L.Ed.2d 127 (2006). As Rivera did not object to the admission of this evidence below, however, our review is for plain error only, see United States v. Washington, 434 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir.2006), which requires that defendant demonstrate that an obvious error occurred, which affected his substantial rights, and seriously impaired the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, see id. at 11. We discern no plain error. 7 First, Rivera cannot persuasively complain about the admission of this evidence, given that it was the defense — not the government — which elicited it in the course of its cross-examination of Perez, in a botched attempt to establish that Rivera had never been involved in any prior drug theft while serving on the police force. See United States v. Lizardo, 445 F.3d 73, 84 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 524, 166 L.Ed.2d 390 (2006). 2 8 In any event, the record clearly discloses that the admission of the Perez testimony under Rule 404(b), even if it were erroneous, ultimately did not affect Rivera's substantial rights. See Washington, 434 F.3d at 11. The government adduced overwhelming admissible evidence to refute the defense theory that Rivera had not realized that Perez planned to steal heroin from the drug dealer's vehicle on May 9, 2003. The evidence included: (i) video — and audio-recorded conversations of the coconspirators' meetings on April 23 and 28, 2003, wherein Perez made clear to Rivera and Brito that they would steal drugs from the drug dealer's vehicle; (ii) video — and audio recordings of the actual theft on May 9 in which Rivera witnessed Perez removing the heroin from the vehicle; and (iii) recordings of a meeting between Perez and Rivera on July 7, 2003, in which Rivera approached Perez to ask him if he wanted to join a similar drug theft. The Perez trial testimony corroborated the substance of all these inculpatory recordings. Given the pellucid trial record, it is inconceivable that, were it not for the admission of the Perez testimony regarding Rivera's prior marijuana theft, the jury would have concluded that Rivera was unaware that the conspiracy encompassed the theft of heroin.