FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10031
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01622-DGC-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEONARDO RABANALES-CASIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
“[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” we
conclude that a “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
With respect to Counts I and II, Rabanales-Casia argues that there was insufficient
evidence to prove a conspiracy or to prove any element of hostage taking. The
elements of hostage taking are that the defendant: (1) seized or detained another
person, (2) threatened to kill, injure, or continue detaining that person, and (3) did
so “in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or
abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the
person detained.” 18 U.S.C. § 1203(a).
The first element is supported by testimony that the aliens were not allowed
to leave the house in which they were staying. The second and third elements are
supported by testimony that Rabanales-Casia threatened to leave aliens “hungry
and thirsty in a dark room if” their families did not pay money to the smugglers.
That Rabanales-Casia was part of a conspiracy is supported by testimony that he
was employed to help collect payments from the aliens’ families.
With respect to Counts III and IV, Rabanales-Casia argues that there was
insufficient evidence to prove that he acted for commercial advantage or financial
gain. But the government presented testimony that Rabanales-Casia was paid for
his services.
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting evidence that a co-defendant raped an alien. That a female alien was
2
raped is highly probative of whether aliens were held against their will rather than
in conditions to which they had consented. Any prejudice was reduced by both a
limiting instruction and the condition that the government “not elicit the lurid
details of the rape.” The district court’s decision was within its discretion under
Federal Rule of Evidence 403.1
AFFIRMED.
1
On appeal, Rabanales-Casia mentions additional reasons that the evidence
should not have been admitted: (1) it violated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), (2)
it violated his due process rights, and (3) it was disclosed “immediately before
trial.” Because he did not raise these issues below, we review for plain error. See
United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1244 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004). There was no
such error in this case. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466–67
(1997).
3