Court Opinion

ID: 9940550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:00:37.176103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:03.031572
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30147        Document: 00517063466             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/14/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 23-30147                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                           February 14, 2024
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Bobby Joe Mincey,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 1:21-CR-118-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         A jury convicted Bobby Joe Mincey of aggravated sexual abuse under
   18 U.S.C. § 2241(c). He received a within-guidelines sentence of 600
   months in prison to be followed by a 10-year term of supervised release.
   Mincey timely appealed.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30147      Document: 00517063466           Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/14/2024

                                     No. 23-30147

          The jury trial took place approximately three years after the last
   incident of abuse alleged by Mincey’s victim. His victim testified that, on
   more than one occasion during the pertinent time period, Mincey engaged in
   prohibited sexual acts with her. When she could not recall all the events that
   occurred on the final day of abuse, the district court allowed the Government
   to play the audio portion of a video recording made of the victim during a
   forensic interview that took place within a week of the last instance of abuse.
   That audio recording described the last instance of abuse in great detail.
   Although, at the time of trial, the victim did not remember taking part in the
   forensic interview, and she did not recall the last instance of abuse even after
   listening to the audio recording, the victim averred that she had been asked
   to tell the truth during the interview and had done so.
          Mincey objected to the admission of the audio recording as a recorded
   recollection under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(5). The parties disagree
   whether his objections were sufficient to preserve his appellate arguments
   that the recording was not adopted or verified by the witness or anyone else
   at the time of the recording, that it does not accurately reflect the witness’s
   knowledge, and that it lacks sufficient indicia of reliability. If properly
   preserved, Mincey’s arguments would be reviewed for an abuse of discretion
   subject to the harmless-error doctrine. See Adams v. Mem’l Hermann, 973
   F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2020). If unpreserved, the arguments would be
   subject to the plain-error standard. United States v. Warren, 986 F.3d 557,
   565 (5th Cir. 2021). Under either standard, Mincey must demonstrate an
   error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
   129, 135 (2009); Adams, 973 F.3d at 351; Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes,
   L.L.C., 898 F.3d 607, 626 (5th Cir. 2018). It is unnecessary for us to decide
   whether the victim’s prior recorded statement was inadmissible under Rule
   803(5) because, given the other overwhelming evidence of Mincey’s guilt,
   admission of the statement was harmless. See Adams, 973 F.3d at 351; Holmes

                                           2
Case: 23-30147      Document: 00517063466           Page: 3     Date Filed: 02/14/2024

                                     No. 23-30147

   v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 734 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir. 1984), overruled on
   other grounds by Guevara v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 59 F.3d 1496 (5th Cir. 1995);
   United States v. Judon, 567 F.2d 1289, 1294-95 (5th Cir. 1978).
          Relatedly, Mincey argues that the admission of the audio recording of
   the victim’s forensic interview violated his right to confront and cross-
   examine her on the details of events that she did not recall at the time of trial.
   The parties also disagree whether this argument was properly preserved. We
   need not decide the appropriate standard of review because we conclude
   there was no error under either standard. See United States v. Perryman, 965
   F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 2020). The admission of the recorded recollection
   did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the declarant who made the
   statements in the recorded recollection appeared as a witness at trial and was
   cross-examined by defense counsel. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36,
   53-54 (2004); United States v. Meyer, 63 F.4th 1024, 1042 (5th Cir.), cert.
   denied, 144 S. Ct. 312 (2023).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3