United States v. Garcia-Macias ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51086
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HEATHER GARCIA-MACIAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-16-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Heather Garcia-Macias appeals her conviction, after a jury
trial, of attempting to bring an illegal alien into the United
States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. During the trial,
Garcia-Macias argued that she was under duress when she attempted
to smuggle the illegal alien into the United States because the
illegal alien had verbally threatened her and physically injured
her by grabbing her arm. The district court excluded pictures of
a bruise on Garcia-Macias’s arm from the evidence because the
pictures were not disclosed to the Government within the time
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-51086
-2-
limit set by the district court’s standing discovery order.
Garcia-Macias challenges that ruling on appeal.
This court reviews “alleged discovery errors for abuse of
discretion and will order a new trial only where a defendant
demonstrates prejudice to [her] substantial rights.” See United
States v. Doucette, 979 F.2d 1042, 1044-45 (5th Cir. 1992);
States v. Sarcinelli, 667 F.2d 5, 6-7 (5th Cir. 1982). Even if
the district court abused its discretion in excluding the
evidence, Garcia-Macias has not shown that the error affected her
substantial rights. Garcia-Macias has not demonstrated that, if
the pictures were introduced, the jury would have chosen to
believe her testimony that she committed the § 1324 violation
under duress and to disbelieve the testimony of the three border
patrol agents whose testimony controverted her defense of duress.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.