United States v. Garrett Door, Sr.
663 F. App'x 570
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Door Sr. appeals his convictions after a jury trial; government presented seven witnesses including Jane Doe and M.H.; M.H. testified about a 2009 misdemeanor sexual assault for which Door pled nolo contendere.
- Door argues M.H.’s 2009 testimony is inadmissible under Rule 413 and 403; district court admitted it.
- Court reviews de novo the district court’s interpretation of Rule 413/403 and whether evidence falls within the rule’s scope; admitted evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion if within scope.
- Rule 413 permits evidence of sexual assaults involving physical force; 2009 act included punching M.H.; the district court did not err in admitting M.H.’s testimony.
- Rule 403 balancing considered similarity, timing, frequency, intervening circumstances, and necessity; district court did not abuse in finding similarity and necessity.
- District court need not sanitize M.H.’s testimony by excluding the punching detail to offer a coherent explanation of the 2009 incident; ruling affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M.H.’s 2009 testimony was admissible under Rule 413. | Door argues it shows only violence propensity. | Door concedes 413 applies to sexual assaults with force; 2009 act involved force. | Admissible under Rule 413. |
| Whether, if admissible, M.H.’s testimony should be excluded under Rule 403. | Door claims high prejudice from other acts. | District court properly weighed factors; similarity and necessity present. | No abuse of discretion; admissible under 403. |
| Whether the district court correctly found necessity of M.H.’s testimony. | Door attacks credibility; testimony was not necessary. | Evidence was helpful to explain credibility issues and lack of eyewitnesses. | Record supports necessity under LeMay. |
| Whether the district court should have sanitized M.H.’s testimony by excluding punching details. | Door suggests sanitizing would reduce similarity. | Sanitizing would hamper government’s coherent theory of the case. | Sanitization not required; full details admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Urena, 659 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (interpretation and scope of FE rules on evidence)
- United States v. Garrido, 596 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2010) (scope of admissibility under FE rules)
- United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 403 factors; necessity of prior acts evidence)
- Blind-Doan v. Sanders, 291 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 403/413 analysis; relevance of details)
- United States v. Redlightning, 624 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 413 permitting similar acts evidence)
- United States v. H.B., 695 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2012) (element of physical force in sexual assault)