United States v. McMinn

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

United States v. McMinn

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1861

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MCMINN,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Matthew J. Lahey and McLaughlin, Hemeon & Lahey, P.A. on brief _________________ __________________________________
for appellant.
Paul M. Gagnon, United States Attorney, and Jean B. Weld, ________________ ______________
Assistant United States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Disposition
for appellee.


____________________

January 14, 1997
____________________
















Per Curiam. After careful review of the parties' __________

briefs and the record, we grant the government's motion for

summary disposition and dispense with oral argument, as this

appeal presents no substantial question. See 1st Cir. Loc. ___

R. 27.1.

We find no merit in defendant's challenge to the

district court's ruling regarding authentication of the empty

soda bottle. That ruling was consistent with the

requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 901, and it was well within the

district court's discretion in such evidentiary matters.

Particularly, in light of all the circumstances, the

detective's testimony comparing the markings on the bottle

with those shown in the photograph was adequate to support

admission of the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). ___

We reject defendant's argument, which is

unsupported by citation to any relevant authority, that the

district court was required to make some additional,

independent comparison of the bottle and the photograph. The

district court adequately fulfilled its role under Fed. R.

Evid. 901 when it determined that the detective's comparison

was "reasonably reliable" and the jury could believe it or

not, and that the bottle with its glue markings was "not

entirely fungible" and had some "character, weak admittedly,

but sufficient so the jury could say it is the same bottle."





-2-













We likewise reject defendant's unsupported argument that this

court is required to make its own comparison de novo.

Affirmed. ________















































-3-






Reference

Status
Published