United States v. Diaz
United States v. Diaz
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50295 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIA DIAZ, also known as Maria Luz Lucio De La Cruz,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-98-CR-973-ALL --------------------
October 19, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Diaz appeals from her jury conviction for importing a
quantity of marijuana and possessing with intent to distribute a
quantity of marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, and
960. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district
court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross examine a defense
witness with the fact that she was in jail on a misdemeanor
prostitution charge.
This court reviews the admission of evidence for abuse of
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 99-50295 -2-
discretion. United States v. Skipper,
74 F.3d 608, 612(5th Cir.
1996). Furthermore, even if this court finds an abuse of
discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence, the error
is reviewed under the harmless-error doctrine.
Id.Under that
doctrine, the court "must affirm evidentiary rulings unless they
affect a substantial right of the complaining party."
Id.“An
error is harmless if the reviewing court is sure, after viewing
the entire record, that the error did not influence the jury or
had a very slight effect on its verdict.” United States v.
Rodriguez,
43 F.3d 117, 123(5th Cir. 1995).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes
that the admission of the challenged testimony, whether or not
erroneous, was harmless. In light of the overwhelming evidence
of Diaz’s guilt, there is not a significant possibility that the
challenged testimony would have had a substantial effect on the
jury. See United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo,
8 F.3d 202, 210(5th
Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished