Court Opinion

ID: 2963943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:48.470683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:48.873332
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          February 21, 1996
                                [Not for Publication]
                                [Not for Publication]
                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1577

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                         EUGENE M. MARTIN A/K/A DIRK LADSON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Lee H.  Bals  with  whom Friedman  &  Babcock  was  on  brief  for
            ____________             ____________________
        appellant.
            Margaret  D. McGaughey,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  with
            ______________________
        whom Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney and Jonathan R. Chapman,
             ________________                             ___________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Stahl, Circuit Judge.  Following a two-day trial, a
                      Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            jury  convicted Eugene  Martin of  conspiracy with  intent to

            distribute  cocaine  in violation  of  21  U.S.C.    846  and

            possession of cocaine with  intent to distribute in violation

            of 21 U.S.C.    841(a)(1) and   841(b)(1)(B).  He now appeals

            both  convictions,  raising as  his  sole  issue whether  the

            district court abused its discretion by allowing testimony at

            trial  concerning  a  brutal  beating  in  which  Martin  had

            allegedly participated.1  After careful review, we affirm.

                                          I.
                                          I.
                                          __

                                      Background
                                      Background
                                      __________

                      On January 25, 1994,  Roxann Sullivan was  arrested

            for attempting to sell an eighth of an ounce of cocaine to an

            undercover  police  officer  and   another  individual  at  a

            Cumberland  Farms store  in  Berwick, Maine.   Following  her

            arrest, Sullivan agreed  to cooperate with  the police in  an

            attempt  to  arrest  her  cocaine  supplier.    Consequently,

            Sullivan  paged  her supplier,  Aaron  Jamison ("Aaron"),  to

            arrange  another illegal  drug  transaction  for  later  that

            evening.   After  several  subsequent phone  calls, in  which

            Sullivan  spoke with  both  Aaron and  the appellant  Martin,

            Aaron agreed  to meet Sullivan at the  Cumberland Farms store

            where the previous buy had taken place.

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Codefendant  Aaron Jamison  initially filed  a notice  of
            appeal  but that appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution
            on November 14, 1995.

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      Following  these  phone  calls,   police  officials

            equipped Sullivan  with a hidden radio  transmitter, gave her

            some serialized  currency, and  drove her, in  Sullivan's own

            car,  to  the  Cumberland  Farms  store.    Several  officers

            followed  in a  separate  vehicle  to  provide  surveillance.

            Several minutes later, a  maroon van containing Martin, Aaron

            and Aaron's  brother, Harry  Jamison, entered  the Cumberland

            Farms  parking lot.  Martin drove the  van while Aaron sat in

            the  front passenger  seat; Harry  Jamison occupied  the rear

            seat.  Once  she noticed  the van, Sullivan  exited her  car,

            walked towards the van and climbed into its middle seat.  She

            then  negotiated the  purchase of  an eighth  of an  ounce of

            cocaine,  eventually exchanging  the serialized  currency she

            had been given for  two small packets of cocaine.   Following

            the exchange, the police arrested the three occupants  of the

            van.

                      Subsequently, the government tried Martin and Aaron

            together.  At their trial, the court allowed Sullivan and her

            former boyfriend, Arthur Myers, to testify  that, in the fall

            of  1993, Martin and Aaron  had beaten an  individual who had

            sold  drugs for  Aaron and  had allegedly  cheated him.   The

            government offered the testimony to prove the existence of an

            agreement between Martin and  Aaron to conspire to distribute

            drugs.  Before  Sullivan took  the stand, the  court held  an

            extensive sidebar  conference with  the  government and  both

                                         -3-
                                          3

            defense  counsel  concerning  Sullivan's proposed  testimony.

            During  the conference,  the parties  discussed not  only the

            alleged beating  but also the  fact that Sullivan  feared for

            her  life  because she  believed  that Martin  and  Aaron had

            previously murdered someone in New York.  The court cautioned

            the government that eliciting testimony about the alleged New

            York  murder  would  be   highly  inflammatory  and  unfairly

            prejudicial.

                      With respect to the alleged beating, the government

            offered that Sullivan and Myers would testify that Martin and

            Aaron had beaten an individual identified as Leon in the fall

            of  1993.  The government  explained that Leon,  who had sold

            drugs  for Aaron, had become heavily indebted to Aaron due to

            his own personal use  of cocaine.  Aaron also  suspected that

            Leon had been short-changing him on proceeds from Leon's drug

            sales.  The  government added further that Sullivan and Myers

            would testify that, prior to the beating, Aaron had told them

            that  he and Martin were  planning to straighten  Leon out so

            that he would stop using cocaine.

                      Martin's   counsel   objected   to   the   proposed

            testimony,  arguing that  it had no relevance to  the alleged

            conspiracy  to  distribute cocaine.    The  court denied  the

            objection,  ruling that  the testimony  would be  relevant if

            Leon's debts  were tied to  cocaine.  Aaron's  counsel, while

            conceding  that the court had  broad discretion under Fed. R.

                                         -4-
                                          4

            Evid.  4032  to  decide   whether  to  allow  the  testimony,

            nonetheless  argued  that  the  prejudicial  impact   of  the

            proposed testimony outweighed its probative value.  The court

            declined to  prohibit the testimony, but  offered to instruct

            the  jury  that "this  defendant  is  not being  charged  for

            violence  or any such activity, you may only consider this as

            it bears upon the charge of conspiracy or possession."

                      During  Sullivan's  and  Myer's ensuing  testimony,

            neither counsel raised any further objections on the basis of

            unfair prejudice.3  Following  the testimony of each witness,

            the court sua sponte  gave an expanded cautionary instruction
                      ___ ______

            generally  along the  lines of  what it  had proposed  at the

            sidebar conference.

                                         II.
                                         II.
                                         ___

                                      Discussion
                                      Discussion
                                      __________

                      On appeal, Martin  challenges the district  court's

            failure  to exclude  the  testimony concerning  the  beating.

            Martin argues that the connection between the beating and any

                                
            ____________________

            2.  Fed. R. Evid 403 provides in relevant part:

                      Although   relevant,   evidence  may   be
                      excluded  if  its   probative  value   is
                      substantially outweighed by the danger of
                      unfair   prejudice,   confusion  of   the
                      issues, or misleading the jury . . . .

            3.  During  Sullivan's  testimony  about  the   beating,  two
            objections were made, one on the basis of hearsay and another
            on  the   basis  that  an   answer  given  by   Sullivan  was
            nonresponsive.   The  court  denied the  first objection  and
            sustained the second.

                                         -5-
                                          5

            alleged agreement to distribute  cocaine was tenuous at best,

            and  that the graphic details elicited about the brutality of

            the   beating   were   highly   inflammatory   and   unfairly

            prejudicial.   At  the outset,  however, we note  that Martin

            effectively  forfeited   this  issue  by  failing  to  object

            contemporaneously at  trial to the  now-challenged testimony.

            While  Martin initially  raised concerns  about the  proposed

            testimony  during the  sidebar conference,  at that  point in

            time, no witness was  before the jury, no questions  had been

            posed and no  evidence about  the beating  had been  adduced.

            Lacking  such  context,  the  court  could  not  definitively

            balance the  government's need  for the evidence  against any

            correspondent risk of unfair prejudice that it posed.   Thus,

            any  ruling  at  that  point was  preliminary,  and  Martin's

            failure  to  raise   subsequent  contemporaneous   objections

            forfeited the issue.   See, e.g.,  United States v.  Griffin,
                                   ___  ____   _____________     _______

            818  F.2d  97, 105  (1st Cir.),  cert.  denied, 484  U.S. 844
                                             _____  ______

            (1987) (holding  that a  motion in  limine,  even one  raised
                                            __  ______

            during  trial,  does  not  preserve  an  issue  for  appeal).

            Indeed, at oral argument before this court, Martin's counsel,

            noting the absence of contemporaneous objections, essentially

            conceded  that  trial   counsel  had  forfeited  the   issue.

            Accordingly,  we review  only for  plain error.   See,  e.g.,
                                                              ___   ____

            United States v.  Winter, 70  F.3d 655, 659  (1st Cir.  1995)
            _____________     ______

            (forfeited errors reviewed only for plain error).

                                         -6-
                                          6

                      In any event,  there is no  error, much less  plain

            error,  in this  case.  Under  Rule 403, a  court may exclude

            relevant evidence only if the evidence poses a risk of unfair

            prejudice that substantially  outweighs its probative  value.

            See  Fed.  R. Evid  403.    We accord  great  deference to  a
            ___

            district  court's judgment  on such  issues, and  will review

            even properly preserved  assertions of error only for a clear

            abuse  of discretion.  See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 944
                                   ___  ____  _____________    _____

            F.2d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 1991).

                      The fact  that Martin had  previously helped  Aaron

            beat  up a  former associate  who had  been taking  money and

            drugs from Aaron tended to show Martin's participation in the

            conspiracy.  A factfinder  could reasonably infer that Martin

            would not have helped Aaron in such an endeavor unless he had

            a  personal interest in the success  of the drug distribution

            venture.   Thus, the  evidence was  clearly probative on  the

            issue of whether an agreement  existed.  Furthermore, as  the

            district  court correctly  noted, the government  needed this

            evidence  to help  refute Martin's  contention that  his mere

            presence  in the van  during the cocaine  transaction did not

            establish that he  had conspired  with Aaron.   On the  other

            side of the  scale, we  agree that the  testimony posed  some

            risk of unfair  prejudice.4  Nonetheless, we  cannot say that

                                
            ____________________

            4.  Specifically, Martin points to Sullivan's statements that
            Aaron told her that  they had left Leon "dead  and stinking,"
            and that she had  observed Aaron and Martin hitting  Leon and

                                         -7-
                                          7

            the risk so  outweighed the testimony's undeniable  probative

            value  as   to  constitute  a  clear   abuse  of  discretion.

            Moreover, we think the district court substantially minimized

            the  risk by  carefully instructing the  jury that  it should

            consider the  testimony only for the  purpose of establishing

            the conspiracy.

                                         III.
                                         III.
                                         ____

                                      Conclusion
                                      Conclusion
                                      __________

                      For the  foregoing reasons, Martin's  conviction is

            affirmed.
            affirmed

                                
            ____________________

            tearing  off  his  clothes.   Martin  also  notes that  Myers
            testified  that  Aaron  and   Martin  "were  kicking  [Leon],
            punching him, threw a  bike at him, [and] they  made him take
            off all his clothes, [and] took his money."  

                                         -8-
                                          8