Court Opinion

ID: 2964926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:04.420293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.751013
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2157

                                  ALBERT J. CHIMENO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               DANIEL A. PION, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                 [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                         __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Albert J. Chimeno on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Marc DeSisto, Kathleen M. Powers and DeSisto Law Offices on  brief
            ____________  __________________     ___________________
        for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 24, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Upon review  of the parties' briefs and the
                 __________

            record  on appeal,  we conclude  that there  was no  abuse of

            discretion in the two evidentiary rulings of which plaintiff-

            appellant complains.

                 In  the  district court  action,  plaintiff accused  two

            Woonsocket, Rhode Island police  officers of using  excessive

            force  and  of  assault  and  battery  during the  course  of

            plaintiff's arrest following an altercation with the officers

            during a stop for traffic violations.  The jury found for the

            defendants.

                 In  this appeal,  plaintiff  challenges two  evidentiary

            rulings  of the trial  court.  Determinations  concerning the

            admissibility as well  as the exclusion of  evidence are left

            to the  sound discretion of  the trial court, and  this court

            will   reverse  only  if   the  district  court   abused  its

            discretion.  See Knowlton v.  Deseret Medical Inc., 930  F.2d
                         ___ ________     ____________________

            116, 124 (1st Cir. 1991).

                 First, plaintiff challenges  the trial court's  decision

            not to admit into the  record a state court decision vacating

            his  convictions for the traffic violations that prompted the

            initial stop.  The district court was within its  discretion,

            because the issue of whether plaintiff actually committed the

            traffic violations for which he was stopped was  not relevant

            to whether the  police officers used  excessive force in  the

            course  of  his  arrest.   Plaintiff  did  not  challenge the

                                         -2-

            legality  of  the  arrest  per  se,  and  in  any  event  the

            subsequent decision to vacate his convictions for the traffic

            violations is only marginally relevant, if at all, to whether

            the police officers  had a sufficient basis  for stopping him

            at the time they did.

                 Second, plaintiff challenges the  trial court's decision

            to admit his "mug shot"  on grounds that it was substantially

            more prejudicial than probative.  See Fed. R. Evid. 403.  The
                                              ___

            trial court was within its discretion, as the lack of visible

            injuries on plaintiff's  neck in the photograph  was relevant

            in  that  it  tended  to undermine  his  testimony  that  the

            defendants had  choked him during the arrest.   Moreover, the

            risk  of prejudice  from  the photograph  was  minimal.   The

            photographs were  of the  very arrest that  gave rise  to the

            lawsuit, and  thus -- unlike  mug shots for prior  arrests --

            had no tendency  to imply past criminal conduct.   Cf. United
                                                               ___ ______

            States  v. Fosher,  568 F.2d  207 (1st Cir.  1978) (requiring
            ______     ______

            safeguards for the introduction  of prior mug shots  to avoid

            eviscerating  the rule generally forbidding evidence of prior

            criminal acts).

                 The  judgment  of the  district  court in  favor  of the
                 ________________________________________________________

            defendants-appellees is summarily affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
            ___________________________________________

                                         -3-