Opinion ID: 2671702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of L.H.’s Testimony

Text: Before serving as an informant against Mr. Thomas, L.H. obtained felony convictions for forgery, theft, obstruction of justice, and drug possession. III R. at 14, 145-46. Following these convictions, police arrested L.H. on an unrelated charge and she agreed to cooperate by purchasing drugs from Mr. Thomas under the supervision of law enforcement. Id. at 14-16. L.H. made three purchases of crack, which involved quantities of 1.03 grams, 0.28 grams, and 0.18 grams.3 Id. at 17-18, 22, 26, 31-32, 40, 47-51, 81, 134-35, 138-40; see id. at 199. Mr. Thomas argues that the district court should have excluded L.H.’s testimony. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 23-27. We would ordinarily review the trial court’s decision to admit testimony for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476, 1479 (10th Cir. 1991). But the government contends we should review for plain error and argues that Mr. Thomas did not adequately raise the issue below. Appellee’s Br. at 16. Mr. Thomas disagrees. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 1-2. We need not decide whether 3 Mr. Thomas argues that these purchases were not “controlled.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2, 27. But this argument does not affect the substance of our inquiry or the district court’s. Admissibility turns on the rules of evidence, not whether police officers would consider the buy a “controlled” one. 7 to confine our review to the plain-error standard because we would uphold the evidentiary ruling even under the less deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Caldwell, 585 F.3d 1347, 1355 (10th Cir. 2009). The testimony was relevant and would generally be considered admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401-02. But the district court had discretion to exclude L.H.’s testimony if its probative value had been “substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Mr. Thomas challenges L.H.’s testimony as uncorroborated. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 23-27. But corroboration is not required for introduction of the evidence. See United States v. Cox, 934 F.2d 1114, 1120-21 (10th Cir. 1991) (uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator is sufficient for a finding of guilt). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing L.H. to testify even if her account had been uncorroborated.