Court Opinion

ID: 2964513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:26:45.68754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:53.407041
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1861

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                    ROBERT MCMINN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Matthew  J. Lahey and  McLaughlin, Hemeon  & Lahey,  P.A. on brief
            _________________      __________________________________
        for appellant.
            Paul  M.  Gagnon,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Jean  B.  Weld,
            ________________                                   ______________
        Assistant United  States Attorney,  on Motion for  Summary Disposition
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   January 14, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   After careful review  of the parties'
                      __________

            briefs and the  record, we grant the government's  motion for

            summary disposition and dispense  with oral argument, as this

            appeal presents  no substantial question.  See  1st Cir. Loc.
                                                       ___

            R. 27.1.

                      We find  no merit  in defendant's challenge  to the

            district court's ruling regarding authentication of the empty

            soda   bottle.     That  ruling   was  consistent   with  the

            requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 901, and it was well within the

            district  court's discretion  in  such  evidentiary  matters.

            Particularly,  in  light   of  all  the   circumstances,  the

            detective's testimony  comparing the  markings on the  bottle

            with those shown  in the photograph  was adequate to  support

            admission of the evidence.  See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4).  
                                        ___

                      We   reject   defendant's   argument,    which   is

            unsupported by  citation to any relevant  authority, that the

            district  court   was  required  to   make  some  additional,

            independent comparison of the bottle and the photograph.  The

            district court  adequately fulfilled  its role under  Fed. R.

            Evid. 901 when it  determined that the detective's comparison

            was "reasonably  reliable" and the  jury could believe  it or

            not,  and that  the bottle  with its  glue markings  was "not

            entirely fungible" and had some "character,  weak admittedly,

            but sufficient  so the jury could say it is the same bottle."

                                         -2-

            We likewise reject defendant's unsupported argument that this

            court is required to make its own comparison de novo.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-