Chimeno v. Pion ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • 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    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-






Document Info

Docket Number: 94-2157

Filed Date: 10/27/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015