Opinion ID: 172022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Rick Murray’s Testimony

Text: Mr. Eastom argues that the district judge erred in excluding the testimony of Rick Murray, an experienced drug counselor, and that this erroneous exclusion denied him an opportunity to present his defense. He asserts that the testimony would have impeached Officer Henderson’s testimony and served as evidence that Mr. Eastom’s methamphetamine possession was consistent with personal use. We find no reversible error in the exclusion. Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, a district judge must be satisfied that the proposed -12- expert testimony is both reliable and relevant before permitting a jury to assess the testimony. United States v. Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117, 1122 (10th Cir. 2006). The district judge’s determination of reliability is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. However, a non-constitutionally erroneous decision to exclude evidence is considered harmless unless a substantial right of a party is affected. United States v. Velarde, 214 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2000). A substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial influence on the outcome or leaves the court in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect. Id. The question of whether a constitutional violation has occurred is reviewed de novo. United States v. Solomon, 399 F.3d 1231, 1239 (10th Cir. 2005). The right to present a defense arises under the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. Id. We will reverse the district judge’s decision excluding evidence only if the proffered evidence is both relevant and material (i.e., its exclusion would affect a trial’s outcome). United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 519 F.3d 1236, 1238–39 (10th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 162 (2008). Here, even assuming that the district judge erred by excluding the testimony, we conclude that the exclusion was harmless and Mr. Eastom’s right to present a defense was not violated. Mr. Murray’s testimony would not have affected the trial’s outcome. See Velarde, 214 F.3d at 1211 (holding that an erroneous decision to exclude evidence is considered harmless unless the error had a substantial influence -13- on the outcome or leaves this court in grave doubt as to whether it had such an effect); Hernandez-Hernandez, 519 F.3d at 1238–39 (holding that a decision excluding evidence will be reversed on constitutional grounds only if the evidence affects the trial’s outcome). At trial, Officer Henderson testified that methamphetamine is “usually purchased on the amount you’re going to use in one setting or at the time you plan to use it.” Rec., vol. IV at 91. He also testified that the largest amount that he had known a user to purchase at one time for ingestion was 3.5 grams. This testimony implies that if more than 3.5 grams are found on an individual, those drugs are probably for distribution rather than personal use. However, on cross-examination, Officer Henderson admitted that he agreed that there was not a bright line one could draw to say that possession of drugs in a quantity above that line would always be for distribution purposes. Therefore, Officer Henderson left open the possibility that the 5.7 grams of methamphetamine found at Mr. Eastom’s home were for personal use. Mr. Murray would have testified that he had met individuals that had purchased more than 3.54 grams at a given time for personal use. Like Officer Henderson’s testimony, Mr. Murray’s testimony points to the possibility that the 5.7 grams of methamphetamine found at Mr. Eastom’s home were for personal use. In other words, far from impeaching Officer Henderson’s testimony, Mr. Murray’s testimony would have essentially been cumulative. -14- Had Mr. Murray’s testimony been presented to the jury, we are convinced it would not have altered the pool of evidence sufficiently to affect the outcome of the trial. Even with Mr. Murray’s cumulative testimony, evidence that strongly indicates that the 5.7 grams of methamphetamine were for distribution would have remained before the jury. For example, the methamphetamine was found in a bag containing digital scales and firearms. Therefore, the exclusion is not reversible error.