United States v. Meeks ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 16, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60139
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEBORAH THERESA MEEKS, also known as
Deborah Meeks Quaintance,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:02-CR-73-WS-ALL
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deborah Theresa Meeks appeals her convictions for mail fraud
and money laundering. She argues that the district court erred by
admitting the testimony of certain witnesses at trial. We review
the district court’s ruling on the admissibility of testimony for
abuse of discretion.2 We AFFIRM.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
United States v. Moody, 903 F.2d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 1990).
Meeks’ first contention is that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting the testimony of Antonio Johnson regarding
statements made to him by Gloria Johnson. We disagree. The
district court admitted the prior inconsistent statements made by
Gloria to impeach her trial testimony.2
Meeks also contends that the district court abused its
discretion by allowing the prosecution to present to the jury a
portion of the grand jury testimony of Chaquita Hill. We agree
with Meeks that the court erred in allowing this testimony to be
admitted as a recorded recollection because there was no predicate
showing that, at the time Hill provided her grand jury testimony,
the relevant conversation was “fresh in [her] memory.”3 However,
any error in admitting this testimony was harmless.4 The grand
jury testimony was merely cumulative of other testimony in the
record, and its admission at trial did not affect Meeks’
substantial rights.5
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
2
See United States v. Polasek, 162 F.3d 878, 883 (5th Cir.
1998); United States v. Sisto, 534 F.2d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 1976).
3
United States v. Judon, 567 F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir.
1978).
4
See United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir
1996).
5
Id.