Opinion ID: 3183072
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of A.L. (Contreras's Stepson)

Text: The government attempted to introduce pursuant to Rule 404(b) the testimony of Contreras's 15-year-old stepson, A.L., concerning Contreras's physical treatment of A.L. in its case-in-chief. The court denied the motion. In denying the government's Rule 404(b) motion and precluding A.L.'s testimony, the court stated: -15- I'm not going to allow his testimony in the case in chief. But after I hear the defense case, I can best evaluate what the probative value versus the prejudicial effect might be. So it might be that he'll be allowed as a rebuttal witness, depending, but not in the case in chief, because my concern about it being very strong evidence of predisposition. So that's the ruling. Contreras asserts that while the district court did not permit the government to present evidence in its case-in-chief concerning the allegation that Contreras would hit A.L., his stepson, repeatedly on the head with a closed fist, it ruled that such evidence could be used as rebuttal evidence. Contreras maintains that [t]his ruling essentially prevented [him] from introducing evidence regarding his treatment of A.C. Therefore[,] the court abused its discretion in ruling that it could be admissible as rebuttal evidence. (Emphasis added.) Contreras's argument fails. First, the district court merely commented on the possibility that the evidence concerning A.L. could be used as rebuttal evidence. As the government points out, [t]he district court could not be expected to announce [or] rule that the evidence could not be used in rebuttal prior to even hearing the defendant's case-in-chief. Second, after Contreras presented his case-in-chief, the government again requested that the district court admit A.L.'s testimony as rebuttal evidence. The government argued that Contreras's case-in-chief had opened the door and that the court should therefore permit A.L. to testify. The district court disagreed and did not permit the government to call A.L. as a rebuttal witness. Finally, Contreras has failed to identify what evidence he was precluded from introducing based on the district court's denial of the government's Rule 404(b) motion concerning A.L.'s testimony. -16- 3. Evidence Concerning A.C.'s Mother's Habits and Household The district court granted motions in limine by the government to exclude any evidence of prior arrests, convictions, police reports, or character evidence related to Sine, A.C.'s mother, and her husband, Sam Sine. Contreras argues that this evidence was key to his claim that A.C. could have sustained some or all of her injuries while in the Sines' care. He intended to introduce evidence such as criminal convictions and alcohol abuse. He asserts that such evidence was relevant to the issue of alternative causes of death and admissible as evidence of habit under Federal Rule of Evidence 406. At trial, Contreras made no offer of proof showing what he planned to introduce about Sine and her husband. Sine's husband did not testify at trial. Sine had no convictions involving dishonesty or any felony convictions. Contreras's attorney claimed Sine and her husband both have extensive drinking problems, domestic violence problems. He also asserted that Sine has a conviction for neglect and removal of a child but was unable to recall what the sentence was and had no copy of the judgment of conviction. The district court ruled that Contreras's claims that Sine may have some kind of reputation in the community isn't something that gets to be admitted with regard to her credibility, this mother's credibility, and there's no claim she's the one who was even present when this child sustained [her] injuries. The district court also emphasized a number of times that if Contreras had evidence that Sine or someone else caused the injuries or bruises, that testimony would be admitted. The record supports a finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit this evidence.