Court Opinion

ID: 9367951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 17:00:29.900544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:04.696571
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1072     Document: 010110807238       Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 2, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 22-1072
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:20-CR-00278-RMR-1)
  ZYAIRE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Zyaire Echean                         (D. Colo.)
  Williams,

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel unanimously

 concluded oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this

 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case was therefore

 ordered to be submitted without oral argument on January 11, 2023.

       On July 1, 2020, Zyaire Williams was involved in a gunfight outside of a

 liquor store in Denver, Colorado. The altercation began as a dispute between rival

 gang members inside the store, which spilled out onto the sidewalk. Security camera

 footage captured four individuals, including Williams and two associates—Daniel

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-1072    Document: 010110807238        Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 2

 Epperson and Lougary Eddington—firing guns outside the store. Epperson was shot

 and collapsed during the exchange and the opposing gang member, Roy Fernandez,

 fled after being shot in the arm. Williams unsuccessfully attempted to move

 Epperson’s body into his vehicle after the fight, but absconded when it became

 apparent police were called to the scene. Upon arrival, first responders rushed

 Epperson to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

       Shortly after the incident, police secured the crime scene and investigators

 began processing evidence. Officers discovered several clusters of shell casings,

 including seven SIG 9mm Luger casings located where security footage showed

 Williams discharging his weapon during the fight. Additionally, one responding

 officer was a member of the Denver Police Department’s Special Operations

 Response Team, which specializes in surveilling high-crime areas. This officer

 examined footage from the store’s security cameras and recognized Williams, who

 has prominent face tattoos, from previous patrol encounters.

       Williams was charged with possession of ammunition as a previously

 convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At trial, Williams argued the

 crime scene was not properly secured and he could not be convincingly tied to the

 shell casings found by police investigators. Among evidence used by prosecutors was

 two body camera videos, noted as Exhibits 38 and 39. The body camera footage

 illustrated the process of securing the perimeter of the crime scene, assessing bullet

 damage, and discovering discarded ammunition. At trial, defense counsel objected to

 the audio portion of the footage, arguing the tapes contained improper hearsay. The

                                                2
Appellate Case: 22-1072    Document: 010110807238         Date Filed: 02/02/2023     Page: 3

 district court agreed the exhibits contained some hearsay, but also determined

 portions of the audio were unfairly prejudicial. The district court determined all but

 twenty-four seconds of body camera footage from Exhibit 39 should be muted when

 presented to the jury. These remaining clips expressly covered the identification of

 casings which acted as the basis for Williams’s criminal charge. In addition to minor

 ambient noises, the complete audio presented to the jury contained the following

 officer statements:

       1:56 – 2:10: “Hey, we got a bullet hole here in this car.”
       3:31 – 3:35: “We got bullet holes in these two cars over here.”
       4:16 – 4:22: “Oh, there’s one right here.”

       The jury returned a verdict against Williams, and he received a sentence of 87

 months’ incarceration. On appeal, Williams requests this court determine the

 admission of the audio in Exhibit 39 is unfairly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403

 and violative of his access to a fair trial. This court concludes the three short audio

 clips were aptly curated to highlight the most probative portions of the evidence

 without prejudicing Williams.

       Admission of evidence at trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United

 States v. Collins, 575 F.3d 1069, 1073 (10th Cir. 2009). Abuse of discretion occurs if

 a judgment is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” Ralston

 v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965, 968 (10th Cir. 2001). Federal Rule

 of Evidence 403 allows trial courts to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative

 value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the

 issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting

                                                 3
Appellate Case: 22-1072    Document: 010110807238          Date Filed: 02/02/2023    Page: 4

 cumulative evidence.” See also United States v. Armajo, 38 F.4th 80, 84 (10th Cir.

 2022). District courts’ Rule 403 determinations are typically afforded great deference

 “because the considerations arising under Rule 403 are susceptible only to case-by-

 case determinations, requiring examination of the surrounding facts, circumstances,

 and issues.” United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128, 1152 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal

 quotation omitted).

       Here, the limited audio played for the jury does not present any of the dangers

 contemplated by Rule 403. Williams argues the nature of the audio and the police

 officers’ statements connoted a heightened state of alarm that biased the jury. The

 officers captured by the clips, however, speak in a calm manner illustrative of a

 standard crime scene investigation. Although inclusion of the audio was not

 favorable to Williams’s argument at trial, that alone cannot support a finding of

 unfair prejudice. United States v. Curtis, 344 F.3d 1057, 1067 (10th Cir. 2003).

 Rather, unfair prejudice requires “the evidence must have an undue tendency to

 suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an

 emotional one.” United States v. Caraway, 534 F.3d 1290, 1301 (10th Cir. 2008)

 (internal quotation omitted). No portion of the audio used here carries an emotional

 charge that could have induced an improper decision from the jury. Nor was the

 evidence needlessly cumulative. The audio uniquely added to the value of the footage

 because it allowed the jury to easily follow the sequence of events shown. Finally,

 Williams offers no support for his suggestion that absent any violation of the Federal

 Rules of Evidence, the audio format itself is improper.

                                               4
Appellate Case: 22-1072    Document: 010110807238        Date Filed: 02/02/2023       Page: 5

        To the extent the audio presents any indicia of prejudice or needless

 cumulation, such threats do not “substantially outweigh” the highly probative nature

 of the evidence. The twenty-four seconds of audio directly implicated the discovery

 of shell casings which acted as the foundation of Williams’s conviction. Further, the

 district court meticulously tailored the evidence to its most relevant portions by

 muting approximately 97% of the available body camera audio. The precise curation

 of evidence to minimize prejudicial effect helps demonstrate the district court

 thoroughly and faithfully executed its Rule 403 balancing duties. United States v.

 Isabella, 918 F.3d 816, 842 (10th Cir. 2019). The district court did not abuse its

 discretion by carefully allowing only the most highly probative audio portions of the

 body camera footage and muting any other footage that may have been remotely

 prejudicial.

        The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is

 hereby AFFIRMED.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Michael R. Murphy
                                              Circuit Judge

                                                5