Opinion
No. CR 03-01659 JB
March 10, 2004
David C. Iglesias, Paul H. Spiers, Kyle T. Nayback, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for United States
Jason Bowles Sharp, Jarmie Bowles, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant Harry Ray's Motion In Limine to Exclude Portions of His Pretrial Statement, filed March 2, 2004 (Doc. 43). The primary issue is whether the Court should exclude certain portions of a pre-trial statement that the Defendant gave to Special Agent Augustine Abeita. Because the Court finds that the statements are inadmissible under rules 401, 402, 403, and 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court will grant the motion.
In his statement to Abeita, Ray described a number of past events in addition to the facts surrounding the charged conduct. These events included the following: (i) Ray's prior DWI arrests; (ii) his theft of a turkey in 1994; (iii) his past abuse of alcohol, including blackout periods and participation in a residential treatment program; (iv) an incident in which Ray sustained a stab wound; (v) other prior fights; and (vi) prior misdemeanor guilty pleas. Ray has moved in limine to exclude these portions of his statement on the grounds that they are irrelevant, overly prejudicial, and constitute improper character evidence.
The parties have reached an agreement with respect to several aspects of Ray's motion. The United States has agreed not to introduce the following portions of Ray's pre-trial statement: (i) Ray's prior DWI arrests; (ii) his theft of a turkey in 1994; and (iii) his prior misdemeanor guilty pleas. Accordingly, the Court will not address those aspects of the motion.
The Government opposes the motion with respect to the following: (i) Ray's past abuse of alcohol, including blackout periods and participation in a residential treatment program; (ii) an incident in which Ray sustained a stab wound; and (iii) other prior fights. The Court finds that these portions of the statement are irrelevant to the instant charge and that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs any probative value. Furthermore, the statements are improper character evidence. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion and exclude these portions of Ray's statement.
Ray's past use of alcohol does not have any tendency to make his self-defense claim more or less probable. While testimony regarding consumption of alcohol on the night in question may inform the jury on the issue whether Ray acted reasonably, evidence of past alcohol abuse will not. The danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs any possible probative value. Furthermore, although the Government asserts that these statements are admissible to show Ray's absence of mistake or accident, the Court finds that Ray's statements regarding his past abuse of alcohol constitute improper character evidence under rule 404(b). Ray is not claiming that his actions were accidental or mistaken but rather that he intentionally acted in self-defense. Accordingly, the Court will exclude references in Ray's statement concerning past alcohol use.
The Court reaches the same conclusion with respect to Ray's statements concerning prior fights in which he was involved, including one incident in which he received a stab wound to his chest. The Government asserts that the Court should admit these portions of the statement because they demonstrate the failure of Ray's self-defense claim by showing that he deliberately manipulates situations to violently take advantage of people who are more vulnerable. The Court does not believe that the fact Ray has been involved in previous fights makes it more or less probable that he acted in self-defense on the night in question. Such evidence may lead the jury to improperly base its determination on an inference that Ray is a dangerous person who is prone to knife fights. The danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs any probative value. Accordingly, the Court will also exclude the portions of Ray's statement concerning prior fights and the stabbing incident in which he received a knife wound to his chest.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant Harry Ray's Motion In Limine to Exclude Portions of His Pretrial Statement is granted. The Government has agreed not to introduce the following portions of Ray's pre-trial statement: (i) Ray's prior DWI arrests; (ii) his theft of a turkey in 1994; and (iii) his prior misdemeanor guilty pleas. The Court will also exclude the portions of the Defendant's pretrial statement that relate to the following: (i) Ray's past abuse of alcohol, including blackout periods and participation in a residential treatment program; (ii) an incident in which Ray sustained a stab wound; and (iii) other prior fights. The Government is ordered to redact all of the aforementioned portions of Ray's statement before publishing the statement to the jury. The Court also instructs the Government's counsel not to mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any excluded evidence.