Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    United States v. Santamaria, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Hugo Santamaria's appeal of his conviction on drug conspiracy and witness intimidation charges. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving an Allen charge or allowing further jury deliberations; (2) sufficient evidence supported the witness intimidation convictions; (3) any error in the jury instruction on "attempt" was not prejudicial; and (4) evidence of Santamaria assaulting a co-conspirator was properly admitted. The court thus affirmed the convictions and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Santamaria, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    39 views7 pages
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Hugo Santamaria's appeal of his conviction on drug conspiracy and witness intimidation charges. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving an Allen charge or allowing further jury deliberations; (2) sufficient evidence supported the witness intimidation convictions; (3) any error in the jury instruction on "attempt" was not prejudicial; and (4) evidence of Santamaria assaulting a co-conspirator was properly admitted. The court thus affirmed the convictions and sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-4279

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Hugo Santamaria's appeal of his conviction on drug conspiracy and witness intimidation charges. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving an Allen charge or allowing further jury deliberations; (2) sufficient evidence supported the witness intimidation convictions; (3) any error in the jury instruction on "attempt" was not prejudicial; and (4) evidence of Santamaria assaulting a co-conspirator was properly admitted. The court thus affirmed the convictions and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    39 views7 pages

    United States v. Santamaria, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving Hugo Santamaria's appeal of his conviction on drug conspiracy and witness intimidation charges. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that: (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving an Allen charge or allowing further jury deliberations; (2) sufficient evidence supported the witness intimidation convictions; (3) any error in the jury instruction on "attempt" was not prejudicial; and (4) evidence of Santamaria assaulting a co-conspirator was properly admitted. The court thus affirmed the convictions and sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 7

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-4279

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    HUGO SANTAMARIA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
    John T. Copenhaver,
    Jr., District Judge. (2:08-cr-00270-JTC-1)

    Submitted:

    February 17, 2011

    Decided:

    March 18, 2011

    Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gary Collias, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.


    R.
    Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    After

    trial,

    Hugo

    Santamaria

    was

    convicted

    of

    conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, in


    violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006) (Count One), and two counts
    of intimidation or force against a witness, in violation of 18
    U.S.C.A. 1512(b)
    Three).
    court

    (West

    2000

    &

    Supp.

    2010)

    On appeal, he argues the following:

    erred

    instructing

    the

    jury

    to

    return

    (Counts

    Two

    and

    (1) the district


    to

    deliberations

    twice and giving an Allen charge despite the jurys claim that
    it was hung; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to support
    either

    Counts

    Two

    or

    Three;

    (3)

    the

    district

    court

    erred

    instructing the jury on attempt; and (4) the district court


    abused its discretion admitting evidence of an assault.

    Finding

    no reversible error, we affirm.


    This court reviews a district courts decision to give
    an Allen charge and its content for abuse of discretion. *

    United

    States v. Hylton, 349 F.3d 781, 788 (4th Cir. 2003).

    [T]he

    principal concern that we have had with Allen charges is to


    ensure

    that

    they

    apply

    pressure

    to

    the

    jury

    in

    way

    that

    preserves all jurors independent judgments and that they do so


    in a balanced manner.

    Id.

    charge is not per se error.


    *

    Giving the jury a second Allen


    United States v. Robinson, 560 F.2d

    Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).

    507, 517 (2d Cir. 1977); see also United States v. Taliaferro,
    558 F.2d 724, 725 (4th Cir. 1977).

    The district court is in

    the best position to determine whether there exists a reasonable


    possibility that an impartial verdict can be reached.

    United

    States v. Gordy, 526 F.2d 631, 636 (5th Cir. 1976).

    After

    reviewing the transcript, we conclude the district court did not


    abuse its discretion.
    This court reviews a district courts denial of a Fed.
    R. Crim. P. 29 motion de novo.

    United States v. Alerre, 430

    F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005).

    A defendant challenging the

    sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction bears a


    heavy burden.

    United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067

    (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

    A jurys

    verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence,


    taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support
    it.

    Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); see

    United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 160 (4th Cir. 2006).
    Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of
    fact

    could

    accept

    as

    adequate

    and

    sufficient

    to

    support

    conclusion of a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


    Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (internal quotation marks omitted).

    The

    court considers both circumstantial and direct evidence, drawing


    all reasonable inferences from such evidence in the governments
    favor.

    United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir.


    3

    2008).
    does

    In resolving issues of substantial evidence, this court

    not

    reweigh

    determination

    the

    of

    evidence

    witness

    or

    reassess

    credibility,

    the

    see

    factfinders

    United

    States

    v.

    Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 563 (4th Cir. 2008), and can reverse a
    conviction on insufficiency grounds only when the prosecutions
    failure is clear.

    United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 394

    (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    Santamaria was convicted of two counts of intimidating
    a witness.

    Count Two charged Santamaria with intimidating a

    person using threats with the intent to prevent a person from


    giving

    information

    Santamaria

    with

    to

    law

    using

    enforcement.

    threats

    to

    prevent

    testifying in an official proceeding.


    evidence

    clearly

    established

    that

    Count

    Three

    charged

    person

    from

    In this instance, the


    Santamaria,

    through

    his

    threatening and intimidating conduct, intended that a person not


    talk

    to

    authorities

    or

    testify.

    We

    conclude

    substantial

    evidence supports the jurys verdict, including the question of


    whether the Government properly proved the location of the crime
    charged in Count Three.
    Santamaria
    giving

    the

    jury

    his

    claims

    the

    proposed

    district

    court

    instruction

    on

    erred

    by

    attempt.

    not
    He

    further contends that the courts instruction on attempt was


    an incorrect statement of the law.

    The decision to give or not

    to

    reviewed

    give

    jury

    instruction

    is
    4

    for

    an

    abuse

    of

    discretion.

    United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390, 398 (4th Cir.

    2006) (en banc).


    determine

    [This court] review[s] a jury instruction to

    whether,

    taken

    as

    states the controlling law.


    requested

    instruction

    (1)

    correct;

    was

    is

    (2)

    whole,

    Id.

    not

    instruction

    fairly

    A courts refusal to give a

    reversible

    was

    the

    error

    if

    the

    substantially

    instruction

    covered

    by

    the

    courts charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the
    trial

    so

    important,

    instruction

    that

    seriously

    failure

    impaired

    conduct his defense.

    the

    to

    give

    the

    defendants

    requested
    ability

    to

    United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 32

    (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    In

    instances

    when

    the

    Appellant

    claims

    the

    instruction was erroneous, this court reviews de novo.


    States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003).

    jury
    United

    If error

    is found, reversal only warranted when the error is prejudicial


    based on a review of the record as a whole.

    United States v.

    Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 923 (4th Cir. 1997).


    Insofar as Santamaria urged the district court to give
    the jury his instruction on attempt, we find no reversible error
    because

    Santamarias

    seriously impaired.
    instruction

    given

    ability

    to

    conduct

    his

    defense

    was

    not

    We also conclude that even if the jury


    by

    the

    district

    supposed error was not prejudicial.

    court

    was

    erroneous,

    the

    This court reviews a district courts rulings on the


    admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, and will only
    overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational.
    United States v. Cole,
    Jan. 21, 2011).

    __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 184550, *6 (4th Cir.

    We will look at the evidence in a light most

    favorable to its proponent, maximizing its probative value and


    minimizing
    marks

    its

    prejudicial

    effect.

    Relevant

    evidence

    omitted).

    tendency

    to

    make

    the

    existence

    Id.
    is

    of

    (internal

    evidence

    any

    fact

    quotation

    having
    that

    is

    any
    of

    consequence to the determination of the action more probable or


    less probable than it would be without the evidence.
    Evid. 401.

    Such evidence is admissible.

    Fed. R.

    See Fed. R. Evid. 402.

    [R]elevance typically presents a low barrier to admissibility.


    United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d 338, 346 (4th Cir. 2003).
    Thus, evidence is relevant if it is worth consideration by the
    jury or has a plus value.

    United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d

    991, 998 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).


    Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
    substantially
    confusion

    of

    considerations

    outweighed
    the
    of

    by

    issues,
    undue

    the
    or

    danger

    of

    misleading

    delay,

    waste

    presentation of cumulative evidence.

    of

    unfair
    the
    time,

    prejudice,

    jury,
    or

    or

    by

    needless

    Fed. R. Evid. 403.

    We conclude that evidence that Santamaria assaulted a


    co-conspirator as the conspiracy was winding down was clearly
    6

    relevant toward the charged conspiracy and the charge that he


    intimidated a witness.

    We further conclude that the probative

    value of the evidence was significant and it was not outweighed


    by the danger of unfair prejudice.
    Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like