Court Opinion

ID: 9918386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 20:00:50.002143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:27.636043
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12676    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 01/12/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12676
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SANTIAGO SALCEDO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-20286-CMA-16
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12676         Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 01/12/2024         Page: 2 of 5

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       23-12676

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Santiago Salcedo appeals the revocation of his supervised re-
       lease based on the district court’s determination that he violated
       the conditions of his supervised release by committing the offense
       of simple battery. He asserts his due process rights were violated
       by the admission of an identifying text message containing hearsay
       into evidence at his revocation hearing. The text message was be-
       tween the victim, M.M., and her 16-year-old daughter, neither of
       whom testified at the hearing. The text message was admitted
       through the testimony of M.M.’s mother, Reyna Morales. After
       review, 1 we affirm the district court.
               A defendant’s supervised release may be revoked if the dis-
       trict court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that “the de-
       fendant violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C.
       § 3583(e)(3). The preponderance of the evidence standard “simply
       requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is
       more probable than its nonexistence.” United States v. Trainor, 376
       F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).

       1 “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.”

       United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 946 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court’s
       conclusion that a defendant violated the terms of his supervised release is re-
       viewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 413 (11th
       Cir. 1994). We review questions of constitutional law de novo. United States v.
       Whatley, 719 F.3d 1206, 1213 (11th Cir. 2013).
USCA11 Case: 23-12676      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 01/12/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-12676               Opinion of the Court                         3

               Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, hearsay is an out-of-
       court statement offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted
       in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The Federal Rules of Evi-
       dence generally prohibit hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. “Although the
       Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in supervised release revo-
       cation hearings, the admissibility of hearsay is not automatic.”
       United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 114 (11th Cir. 1994). A defend-
       ant is entitled to minimal due process requirements, including “the
       right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” Id. In de-
       ciding whether to admit hearsay, the district “court must balance
       the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses against the
       grounds asserted by the government for denying confrontation.”
       Id. The district court must also determine that the statement is
       reliable. Id. The district court’s failure to make such findings vio-
       lates a defendant’s right to due process. Id. Nonetheless, a district
       court’s failure to make findings pursuant to the balancing or relia-
       bility tests is reviewed for harmless error. Id.
              The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
       the text message because it conducted a Frazier analysis and implic-
       itly found the text message to be reliable. Particularly, the court
       balanced Salcedo’s right to confront adverse witnesses against the
       Government’s argument that it did not wish to bring the 16-year-
       old who received the text messages into court and that many do-
       mestic violence victims such as M.M. do not wish to testify. See
       Frazier, 26 F.3d at 114. After Salcedo objected to the introduction
       of the text messages between M.M. and her daughter, the court
       questioned the Government about the reliability of the text
USCA11 Case: 23-12676     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 01/12/2024    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-12676

       messages, particularly by asking clarifying questions to the Govern-
       ment’s witness Morales. The court’s dialogue between the parties
       and Government’s witness, as well as its decision to permit Salcedo
       to conduct voir dire of the witness before it decided to overrule the
       objection, show that it conducted a Frazier analysis and determined
       the evidence was reliable.
              Further, the court’s Frazier analysis was proper because it
       conducted a dialogue with the Government and Morales to learn
       more information about the origin of the text message and why the
       sender and the receiver were not testifying. It acknowledged that
       many domestic violence victims, such as M.M., do not wish to tes-
       tify and learned through Salcedo that M.M. would testify to the op-
       posite of the message. It further learned the Government did not
       want to have M.M.’s 16-year-old daughter testify. Additionally, the
       court found the text message to be reliable because Morales testi-
       fied (1) about how she obtained the message, (2) that Salcedo was
       known as “Chino,” (3) about the messages that she personally re-
       ceived from M.M. regarding the assault, (4) about what the mes-
       sages led Morales to do, and (5) about her knowledge of M.M. and
       Salcedo’s past relationship. Further, the events of May, 23, 2023—
       when police officers located M.M. with Salcedo and found M.M. in
       a physical condition consistent with the text messages—further
       corroborated the text message.
             The court did not abuse its discretion or violate Salcedo’s
       due process rights in admitting the text message identifying
       Salcedo. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding Salcedo
USCA11 Case: 23-12676     Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 01/12/2024   Page: 5 of 5

       23-12676              Opinion of the Court                       5

       violated his supervised release by committing the offense of simple
       battery. Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.