United States v. Hernandez-Bautista ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
February 2, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 05-2386
v.
(D.C. No. CR-05-546 RB)
(New M exico)
EDELBERTO H ERNAN DEZ-
B AU TISTA ,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN, SE YM OU R, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Edelberto Hernandez-Bautista appeals his conviction for conspiring to
transport illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). W e affirm.
On M arch 6, 2005, dispatch for the United States Border Patrol received a
call from a citizen stating that “he suspected somebody had picked up illegal
aliens . . . on a highway that is adjacent to his property . . . ,” rec., vol. IV at 21,
and that two vehicles might be involved. Agent Lee Brawley went to investigate
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
and noticed two vehicles traveling north, away from the indicated location, with a
space of approximately four to six vehicle-lengths between them. One vehicle
was a Ford M ustang, and the other was a Ford Aerostar van. W hen Agent
Brawley made a U-turn to follow the vehicles, the M ustang sped up and separated
from the van. Agent Brawley called for backup and stopped the van. The
M ustang turned west and was subsequently stopped by Agent Victor Cardoza,
who ascertained that the driver was M r. Hernandez-Bautista.
Agent Brawley approached the van and noticed its rear seats were missing
and that numerous people lay in the back, one on top of the other. The driver of
the van, M ario Esteves, admitted that he was an undocumented illegal alien, as
were the ten people accompanying him in the van. Agent Braw ley took M r.
Esteves and his passengers into custody and relayed this information to Agent
Cardoza. Agent Cardoza then asked M r. Hernandez-Bautista if he had been
traveling with the van, and M r. Hernandez-Bautista denied any knowledge of the
van, its driver or its passengers. However, he agreed to accompany Agent
Cardoza to the Border Patrol station for further questioning.
M r. Esteves pled guilty and testified as follows at M r. Hernandez-
Bautista’s trial. He had arranged to transport the aliens from M exico to the
United States and had asked for M r. Hernandez-Bautista’s assistance in moving
them over the border and through the desert. M r. Hernandez-Bautista arranged
for the aliens to stay at one of his homes, showed M r. Esteves where to pick them
-2-
up, and arranged for a third individual to lead them through the desert. M r.
Esteves said he paid M r. Hernandez-Bautista for his assistance and was following
the M ustang when he w as pulled over by the Border Patrol agents.
Agent Braw ley testified that he examined tire tracks at the location where
M r. Esteves picked up the ten aliens. It had rained during the previous night, and
the tracks were clear and distinct. He also investigated tire tracks at M r.
Hernandez-Bautista’s residence and “found . . . tracks w hich, to [him], looked to
be similar size and tire pattern of van [sic] that the aliens were in.” Id. at 34.
One reason he believed the tire tracks at the pick-up location and those at M r.
Hernandez-Bautista’s residence were made by the same vehicle was the
distinctive pattern of the tracks, which derived from the fact that the van did not
have identical kinds of tires. On cross-examination, Agent Brawley admitted
there was another Ford A erostar van parked at M r. Hernandez-Bautista’s
residence, and he had not taken photographs of the other van’s tires.
Border Patrol Agent Angela M alpede testified that M r. Hernandez-
Bautista’s cellular phone received a call from M r. Esteves’ cellular phone minutes
before agents stopped their vehicles, and that the call lasted longer than eight
minutes. In addition, the jury listened to video-taped testimony from two of the
illegal aliens apprehended in M r. Esteves’ van. They identified M r. Hernandez-
Bautista as the man w ho ran the house where they stayed after crossing the
border.
-3-
The jury returned a guilty verdict. M r. Hernandez-Bautista contends the
district court abused its discretion in 1) permitting the use of hearsay evidence; 2)
permitting Agent Brawley to testify regarding the tire tracks; and 3) overruling
his objection to Agent Brawley’s use of the word “conspired” in his testimony.
Before trial, M r. Hernandez-Bautista filed a motion in limine seeking to
exclude the testimony relating to the tip from the anonymous citizen on the
ground that it constituted inadmissible hearsay. He noted that the “Government
has not disclosed any information about the concerned citizen other than [the
citizen’s] statement.” Rec., vol. I at tab 42. The government argued the citizen
tip did not constitute hearsay because it was not being introduced to prove the
truth of the matter asserted but only to show why agents commenced an
investigation and subsequently stopped the two vehicles. The district court
denied the motion. W e review evidentiary rulings by the trial court for abuse of
discretion. See U nited States v. Cass, 127 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 1997).
In United States v. Freeman, 816 F.2d 558, 563 (10th Cir. 1987), we stated
that “out of court statements are not hearsay when offered for the limited purpose
of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken.” The district court
did not abuse its discretion in permitting the agents to testify to the contents of
the citizen tip because this evidence did nothing more than explain why the agents
proceeded to the indicated location and stopped two vehicles. The testimony did
not tie M r. Hernandez-Bautista to the conduct observed by the citizen tipster, and
-4-
we are not persuaded it was prejudicial on this record.
To the extent M r. Hernandez-Bautista claims his right to confront the
citizen tipster was denied w hen the government refused to reveal the tipster’s
identity, he has failed to show that this information “might be relevant to [his]
case and [that] justice would be best served by disclosure.” Id. at 562. “M ere
speculation about the usefulness of an informant’s testimony is not sufficient to
warrant disclosure” of an informant’s identity. United States v. Brantley, 986
F.2d 379, 383 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotes omitted).
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to compel the
government to disclose the identity of the tipster.
Next, M r. Hernandez-Bautista asserts the district court abused its discretion
when it denied his motion in limine seeking to bar Agent Brawley “from
testifying regarding tire tracks or patterns,” arguing he was not qualified to
provide such testimony. Rec., vol. I at tab 45. At trial, the government
contended Agent Brawley would not testify as an expert but would only provide a
lay opinion based on his observations. The district court held:
[i]f the agent establishes a foundation that he looked at these
particular tire tracks, made observations about them, the patterns that
they presented, and that he saw a similar pattern produced by a tire
on the vehicle that [M r. Esteves] had been driving, I don’t think you
have to be an expert to say – to testify about consecutive
observations and any determination you made about them. It is
subject to cross examination. And he didn’t take any pictures and, I
mean, you may be able to do some damage there, but I don’t believe
you have to be qualified as an expert to say, ‘I made two
-5-
observations and they look the same to me . . .’ I simply don’t think
expert qualification is necessary to do just that.
Rec., vol. III at 20-21.
In support of his claim on appeal, M r. Hernandez-Bautista points to several
cases in various circuits involving tire tread testimony rendered by experts. See
United States v. Ross, 263 F.3d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 2001); Gonzales v. M cKune,
247 F.3d 1066, 1070 (10th Cir. 2001); United States v. Johnson, 219 F.3d 349,
358 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Hughes, 211 F.3d 676, 687 (1st Cir. 2000);
United States v. Parrott, 434 F.2d 294, 296 (10th Cir. 1970); Bartlett v. United
States, 232 F.2d 135, 141 (5th Cir. 1956). None of these opinions, however,
stands for the proposition that a witness not certified as an expert is barred from
testifying as to his observations regarding tire tracks and tire tread patterns.
Federal Rule of Evidence 701 states that when a
witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the
form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or
inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the
witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’
testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope
of Rule 702.
M r. Hernandez-Bautista does not claim that Agent Brawley’s testimony exceeded
any of these enumerated limitations. Instead, he merely states that Agent Brawley
is not an expert and that his “testimony was not rationally based and not helpful,
and was prejudicial . . .” Aplt. Br. at 35.
-6-
The government never sought to introduce Agent Brawley’s testimony as
that of an expert. As long as his testimony remained within the limitations of
Rule 701, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting him to testify to
his observations regarding the tire tracks. M r. Hernandez-Bautista did not
establish that Agent Brawley’s testimony involved scientific, technical or other
specialized knowledge barring its admission under Rule 701. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in limine.
Even were we to conclude the district court erred in permitting Agent
Brawley to testify on the tire track evidence, we would hold the error to be
harmless in light of other evidence introduced at trial, namely M r. Esteves’
testimony regarding the agreements and arrangements he had made w ith M r.
Hernandez-Bautista. See United States v. Dulcio, 441 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir.
2006) (applying harmless error review to challenges involving the erroneous
admission of lay opinion testimony).
Finally, M r. Hernandez-Bautista claims Agent Braw ley’s use of the w ord
“conspired” in his testimony constituted an improper legal conclusion and the
district court abused its discretion in overruling M r. Hernandez-Bautista’s
objection. The testimony M r. Hernandez-Bautista challenges w as elicited in
response to the prosecutor’s questioning of Agent Brawley regarding what
transpired when he asked M r. Esteves about M r. Hernandez-Bautista. Agent
Brawley testified that M r. Esteves
-7-
admitted that he . . . had known [M r. Hernandez-Bautista] for several
years; that he was actually working for him – or w orking with him . .
. He made arrangements in M exico with him to help transport these
people – or guide these people in the United States, and that they
conspired together to move these aliens . . .”
Rec., vol. IV at 26. The district court overruled the objection to this testimony,
stating it did not “believe [Agent Brawley] to be stating a legal conclusion.” Id.
at 27. W e agree. Agent Brawley clearly used the term as a synonym for “agreed”
and not as a legal term of art. M oreover, unlike one of the opinions cited by M r.
Hernandez-Bautista, United States v. Espino, 32 F.3d 253, 257 (7th Cir. 1994),
Agent Brawley’s use of the word “conspired” was not purposefully elicited by the
government to improperly influence or confuse the jury. The district court did
not abuse its discretion when it overruled the objection.
For the aforementioned reasons, we AFFIRM M r. Hernandez-Bautista’s
conviction.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-8-