Opinion
No. 05-10601.
Submitted August 15, 2007 San Francisco, California.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
August 30, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CR-04-01258-SRB.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Baylen Boyd Bedell suffered a conviction for aggravated sexual assault in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1) following a jury trial. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Bedell used his finger to insert sand into the victim's vagina. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court sentenced Bedell to 108-months imprisonment followed by ten years of supervised release.
On appeal, Bedell contends that the district court improperly denied his motion to exclude from evidence four photographs that depict scratches and bruises on the victim's face, and bruises on the victim's left breast, legs, and back. Bedell argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting said photographs because they are irrelevant and because their probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We disagree.
First, we reject Bedell's contention that the challenged photographs should have been excluded as irrelevant because they did not involve the subject matter of the indictment. Bedell was charged with aggravated sexual assault. Accordingly, the photographs of the injuries on the victim's face, left breast, legs, and back were relevant to show that Bedell used force or threatened or placed the victim in fear that she would be subject to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnaping. See 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a); see also United States v. Castillo, 615 F.2d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that, where use of force is disputed, "no clearer evidence could be produced than direct evidence of the wounds themselves.").
Bedell presented no evidence to support his contention that some of the injuries depicted in the photographs occurred at a different time and place. Moreover, the prejudicial effect of the challenged photographs was minimized by the fact that Bedell admitted at trial that he hit and punched the victim and had caused some of the injuries she sustained. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the challenged photographs' probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Bedell. See United States v. Hitt, 981 F.2d 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1992).
Finally, because overwhelming evidence established Bedell's guilt, any possible error in admitting the photographs is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
AFFIRMED.