Opinion ID: 4529971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hernández

Text: Hernández raises one argument specific to his case: that the district court should have declared a mistrial, or at least given a curative instruction, after a police officer testified about a Glock handgun and white powder recovered during a search of Hernández's home. Hernández neither contemporaneously objected to the evidence's admission nor moved for a mistrial, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212, 229 (1st Cir. 2011) (unpreserved lay opinion objection reviewed for plain error); United States v. Panet-Collazo, 960 F.2d 256, 260 (1st Cir. 1992) (same for belated mistrial request). - 25 - At trial, the officer testified that, while searching Hernández's home pursuant to a warrant, he found controlled substances[, i.e.] a white, powdery substance and a 9mm Glock hidden in a secret compartment in some furniture.4 Hernández argues that the officer's statements identifying the white powder as drugs constituted inadmissible lay-opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 because the government did not build a foundation sufficient to establish that the officer could identify the powder as drugs simply by looking at it. We need not reach this question, however, because Hernández cannot establish prejudice under the plain-error standard. Multiple witnesses testified that Hernández sold thousands of dollars' worth of heroin every week and that he carried a handgun at the drug point. We will not find plain error when the challenged testimony constituted a tiny part of the government's case. Walker, 665 F.3d at 230 (further noting that it is wildly implausible that the jury would have reached a different conclusion . . . in the absence of [the challenged] testimony). 4We do not address Hernández's other claims of error, which lack arguable merit, relating to the evidence seized from this search. United States v. Rose, 802 F.3d 114, 117 (1st Cir. 2015). - 26 -