United States v. Pedro Orellana
698 F. App'x 915
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Orellana was convicted of sexual abuse of an incapacitated person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(A) and sentenced to 60 months imprisonment plus ten years supervised release. The government appealed is not at issue; this is a defendant's appeal preserved to the Ninth Circuit.
- At trial, a sexual assault nurse (Lt. Carrie Bratton) testified about statements made by the victim, Leticia Alves, during a forensic exam; Alves also testified at trial and was cross-examined.
- After Alves testified, she had an emotional outburst in the courthouse hallway/bathroom that jurors overheard; the district court questioned jurors, instructed them to ignore the interruption, and denied a mistrial.
- The jury heard recorded excerpts of two government interviews of Orellana; the district court admitted the recordings with a limiting instruction and later sent the recordings into the jury room over defense objection.
- The jury found Alves lacked capacity to appraise the nature of the sexual act; the district court applied Sentencing Guideline § 2A3.1 (and also calculated under § 2A3.4) but imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months after explaining the § 3553(a) rationale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause/hearsay — nurse testified to victim statements | Govt: No violation because victim testified and was cross-examined; nurse testimony harmless if testimonial | Orellana: Nurse's testimony was testimonial hearsay violating Crawford | Court: No violation; Alves testified and was cross-examined so admission was permissible or harmless error |
| Mistrial for victim's courthouse outburst | Govt: Cautionary instruction sufficient; jurors able to follow instructions | Orellana: Outburst prejudiced jury; required mistrial | Court: Denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion; presumes jurors follow instructions |
| Sufficiency of evidence on incapacity | Govt: Evidence (victim testimony) shows she was incapacitated when penetration occurred | Orellana: Insufficient evidence to prove inability to appraise sexual act | Court: Evidence sufficient for rational juror to find incapacity beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Jury room access to recorded interviews | Govt: Recordings were admitted and may be sent to jury for deliberations | Orellana: Sending recordings unsupervised risk of misuse; objected | Court: Sending properly admitted exhibits was within discretion; no abuse of discretion |
| Sentencing Guideline selection and variance | Govt: Guidelines applied; district court considered properly and justified variance | Orellana: Challenges to guideline application/variance procedure | Court: District court lawfully calculated ranges, used them as a starting point, and adequately explained its below-Guidelines sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause framework)
- United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893 (harmless-error analysis for Confrontation Clause issues)
- Guam v. Ignacio, 10 F.3d 608 (admission of hearsay and Confrontation Clause principles)
- United States v. Escalante, 637 F.2d 1197 (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (instructions can cure potential prejudice from statements by co-defendants or testimony interruptions)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (sufficiency standard for incapacity to appraise sexual act)
- United States v. Fasthorse, 639 F.3d 1182 (crediting victim testimony about timing of consciousness and penetration)
- United States v. Chadwell, 798 F.3d 910 (trial court discretion to send admitted exhibits to jury room)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (use of Guidelines range as starting point and explanation required for variance)