Filed: Jan. 05, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: States v. Jimenez, 419 F.3d 34, 45 (1st Cir.evidence that he knew that the Treasury check was stolen.1, Aquino-Garcia also contends that the bank records were, irrelevant because the government could not show that his wifes, bank account was empty on the date that he obtained the bank, checks.
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1560
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL AQUINO-GARCIA,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges,
and Restani,* Judge.
Victor González-Bothwell, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
with whom Joseph C. Laws, Jr., Federal Public Defender, was on
brief, for appellant.
Nancy J. Hess, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Gregory R. Miller, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
January 5, 2006
*
Chief Judge of the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. Defendant Miguel Aquino-Garcia appeals from
his conviction for possession of stolen United States mail. See 18
U.S.C. § 1708.
In August 2001, Aquino-Garcia and his wife entered a
branch of the Banco Bilbao Vizcaya in Los Colobos, Carolina, Puerto
Rico, to obtain two bank checks to be used to purchase a house. To
secure these checks, Aquino-Garcia provided the bank with three
other checks: a United States Treasury check belonging to a judge
and his wife for $4,143.54, a personal check to Aquino-Garcia from
his wife for $5,952.24, which was later returned for insufficient
funds, and a cashier’s check for approximately $5,000.
Sometime later, the branch was informed by its operations
center that the Treasury check would not be honored. The branch
manager, Luis Rivera Manzan, called Aquino-Garcia, who told Manzan
that the check had been given to him by the owner of a jewelry
store who was away from Puerto Rico and could not be contacted.
Manzan sent the check to the bank’s security department for
investigation.
In May 2002, an investigative agent with the Puerto Rico
Police interviewed Aquino-Garcia in connection with a complaint
filed by the bank regarding the Treasury check. The agent asked
Aquino-Garcia how he had acquired it. Aquino-Garcia replied that
he had received the check as payment for the sale of bottled water.
He could not, however, name the individual to whom he had made the
-2-
sale. Moreover, he could not provide documentation of the sale.
Eventually, Aquino-Garcia was indicted, tried, and convicted.
On appeal, Aquino-Garcia contends that the government
presented insufficient evidence to prove that he knowingly
possessed stolen mail. He also argues that the district court
abused its discretion by admitting into evidence allegedly
irrelevant and unduly prejudicial material.
We begin with the sufficiency claim, and review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. See United
States v. Jimenez, 419 F.3d 34, 45 (1st Cir. 2005). To prove that
Aquino-Garcia knowingly possessed stolen mail, the government was
required to establish that Aquino-Garcia had in his possession the
contents of mail stolen from a mail receptacle or mail route, and
that he knew that what he possessed had been stolen. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1708; United States v. Indelicato,
611 F.2d 376, 384 (1st Cir.
1979). Aquino-Garcia argues that there was insufficient evidence
to show that the Treasury check was stolen from a mail receptacle
or mail route because the evidence equally suggested that an
authorized person took the Treasury check from the judge's mailbox
and later misplaced it (or had it stolen).
There was sufficient evidence that the Treasury check was
stolen from the mailbox. The government's evidence showed that the
Treasury check was mailed to the correct address; that a mailbox
was located in front of the judge's home; that neither the judge
-3-
nor his wife received the Treasury check; and that neither the
judge nor his wife endorsed it. These facts permit a reasonable
inference that the check was delivered to the mailbox and taken
from it before someone from the judge's household had retrieved the
mail.
Aquino-Garcia also challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence that he knew that the Treasury check was stolen. As to
this element, like the first, the government adequately proved its
case through circumstantial evidence. The government introduced
the personal check drawn on Aquino-Garcia’s spouse’s bank account,
which was returned for insufficient funds, as well as her bank
account records, to bolster its contention that Aquino-Garcia was
knowingly involved in a fraudulent scheme to obtain the bank checks
for the purchase of a house. The government also presented
evidence that Aquino-Garcia had access to the area from which the
Treasury check was stolen at around the time it was taken.
Finally, Aquino-Garcia’s conflicting and uncorroborated stories of
how he acquired the Treasury check suggest that he knew that the
check was stolen and was covering for his actions.
We next turn to the admissibility of evidence claims
which we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Guerrier, 428 F.3d 76, 79 (1st Cir. 2005). Aquino-Garcia argues
that the evidence involving his spouse’s personal check and her
bank records was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. See Fed. R.
-4-
Evid. 401, 403. He contends that there was no basis for an
inference that he was aware that his wife’s check was worthless and
that, in any event, this evidence has little bearing on the
elements of the crime with which he was charged.
As an initial matter, the jury was entitled to infer that
Aquino-Garcia had knowledge that his spouse’s check was worthless.
While it is possible that a husband would be unaware of the state
of his wife’s finances at the time of a joint home purchase, the
issue turns on a jury's judgments about the relationships within
families.1 See United States v. Corchado-Peralta, 318 F.3d 255,
258 (1st Cir. 2003). As discussed above, the district court
correctly concluded that the evidence that Aquino-Garcia knowingly
passed his wife’s worthless check was relevant since it makes it
more likely that he did not obtain the Treasury check accidentally
or through lawful means. Additionally, the district court
reasonably concluded that the evidence was not unduly prejudicial,
as Aquino-Garcia’s state of mind was a central issue in the case.
Aquino-Garcia also challenges the admission of evidence
suggesting that he had access to the area from which the Treasury
check was stolen. Specifically, he challenges the testimony of a
1
Aquino-Garcia also contends that the bank records were
irrelevant because the government could not show that his wife’s
bank account was empty on the date that he obtained the bank
checks. But the fact that there were insufficient funds in the
account on the date of the purchase speaks for itself, and the bank
records further suggest that the absence of sufficient funds in the
account on that day was no passing phenomenon.
-5-
security guard stationed at a gate at the judge's housing
development, who testified that Aquino-Garcia delivered water to
the development around August 2001. Aquino-Garcia primarily argues
that this evidence was irrelevant because it goes only to whether
he stole the Treasury check -- a crime with which he was not
charged. He also contends that the testimony was unreliable and
likely misled the jury.
Aquino-Garcia’s view of the relevance of this evidence is
too narrow. That Aquino-Garcia had access to the judge's
development increases the likelihood that he either stole the check
himself or had an opportunity to encounter the person who stole it.
This, in turn, increases the likelihood that he knew the check was
stolen. Further, any argument about the reliability of the guard’s
testimony goes to its weight, and not its relevance. See United
States v. Noone, 913 F.2d 20, 35 (1st Cir. 1990).
Finally, Aquino-Garcia argues that the testimony confused
the issues and likely misled the jury by suggesting that he was
charged with stealing the Treasury check. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
On the contrary, the record discloses that the jury was clearly
instructed that the charged crime was possession of stolen mail
and, as discussed above, the evidence was relevant to whether
Aquino-Garcia committed the charged crime.
Affirmed.
-6-
