United States v. Fletcher

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-30622
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARL FLETCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:05-CR-50082
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carl Fletcher was found guilty on a single-count indictment
charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. As
his sole argument on appeal, Fletcher argues that the jury heard
the testimony concerning the nature of his prior felony drug
conviction in violation of the holding in Old Chief v. United
States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997). We review the district court’s
evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456, 464 (5th Cir. 2004).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-30622
-2-
Under Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 174, a district court abuses
its discretion if it admits the name or nature of a stipulated
prior conviction when such is offered solely to prove the
prior-conviction element of the offense, and its introduction
raises a risk of a verdict tainted by improper considerations.
The instant case is distinguishable from Old Chief because the
Government did not seek to introduce evidence of the prior
conviction “solely” to prove the prior-conviction element of the
offense. Rather, the Government elicited the testimony in order
to establish that Williams might have a bias in favor of
Fletcher. The potential bias of a witness is always relevant
testimony. United States v. Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir.
1997). As in the instant case, evidence of bias may include
testimony concerning the prior history between a witness and a
defendant where the history establishes a possible motive for
slanted testimony. See, e.g., id. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony. See Insaulgarat,
378 F.3d at 464.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --