23 F.4th 129
1st Cir.2022Background
- In January 2017 three masked men (Torres‑Correa, I.R., and Pablo Díaz‑Ramírez) robbed a CVS in Caguas, Puerto Rico; weapons were displayed and one employee was pistol‑whipped. The takings were $207 and two bottles of liquor.
- Díaz‑Ramírez later confessed to the CVS robbery to police, identified Torres‑Correa as an accomplice, and admitted other robberies in a separate investigation.
- Torres‑Correa was indicted for Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and for using/possessing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)).
- At trial the government introduced store surveillance video; the store manager (Alicea‑Salgado) testified he verified the cameras and made a CD recording; the shift supervisor and Díaz‑Ramírez identified events and Torres‑Correa on the video.
- Defense sought to admit an FBI interview video to impeach Díaz‑Ramírez and to cross‑examine him about a schizophrenia diagnosis; the court excluded the FBI video as having no impeachment value and barred mental‑health questioning absent an expert.
- Jury convicted Torres‑Correa on both counts; he appealed arguing (1) Hobbs Act robbery is not a § 924(c) crime of violence, (2) surveillance footage was not properly authenticated, and (3) improper exclusion of impeachment and mental‑health cross‑examination. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Torres‑Correa's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) | Hobbs Act robbery should not qualify as a § 924(c) crime of violence | Hobbs Act robbery categorically qualifies as a crime of violence | Rejected appeal; Hobbs Act robbery is a § 924(c) crime of violence (precedent binding) |
| Admissibility/authentication of CVS surveillance video | Alicea‑Salgado failed to properly authenticate the footage (no checklist produced; lacked personal knowledge) | Testimony that manager verified camera functionality, viewed footage, and created the CD sufficed; other eyewitnesses corroborated | Affirmed; admission not an abuse of discretion under Rule 901 |
| Exclusion of impeachment (FBI interview) and mental‑health cross‑examination | FBI video contradicts DIAZ‑RAMÍREZ trial testimony and bears on perception; schizophrenia history relevant to credibility | Statements not meaningfully inconsistent/collateral; mental‑health effects require expert testimony; risk of confusion and waste of time | Affirmed; exclusion of FBI video proper as collateral/time‑wasting; mental‑health questioning properly limited absent expert testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. García‑Ortiz, 904 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2018) (Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a § 924(c) crime of violence)
- United States v. Holloway, 499 F.3d 114 (1st Cir. 2007) (panels bound by prior panel precedent)
- United States v. Blanchard, 867 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (authentication standard under Rule 901 reviewed; later testimony can cure early admission)
- United States v. Paulino, 13 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1994) (witness with knowledge may authenticate evidence)
- United States v. Vázquez‑Soto, 939 F.3d 365 (1st Cir. 2019) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (struck down § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Beauchamp, 986 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (extrinsic impeachment properly excluded as collateral when marginally relevant and time‑consuming)