IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20935
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY W. LINDSEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-277-ALL
--------------------
October 21, 2002
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony W. Lindsey appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession of a firearm by a felon. Lindsay argues that his
conviction should be reversed because the district court
erroneously excluded evidence and imposed improper limits on
questioning during voir dire; because the prosecutor improperly
bolstered the testimony of Government witnesses; and because the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20935
-2-
evidence is insufficient to establish that the firearm supporting
his conviction had a nexus with interstate commerce.
Lindsay was charged as a felon in possession of a firearm
after he allegedly discarded a firearm in a grassy field while
fleeing from officers who sought to question him. The trial
court granted the Government’s motion in limine to exclude from
evidence a photograph of a rusty shotgun that a defense
investigator found underneath a house adjacent to the field
approximately three months after Lindsay’s arrest.
This court reviews the admission or exclusion of evidence
for abuse of discretion. United States v. George, 201 F.3d 370,
372 (5th Cir. 2000). Relevant evidence is generally admissible;
irrelevant evidence is not. United States v. Hays, 872 F.2d 582,
586 (5th Cir. 1989); FED. R. EVID. 402. Even if the court finds
“an abuse of discretion in the admission or exclusion of
evidence,” the error is reviewed under the harmless error
doctrine. United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.
1996); United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 364 (5th Cir. 1998).
Evidentiary rulings will be affirmed unless they “affect a
substantial right of the complaining party.” Skipper, 74 F.3d at
612. The exclusion of the photograph was within the discretion
of the trial court because the photograph has no direct relevance
to whether the “chrome object” that Lindsay allegedly discarded
in the field was the firearm recovered by the arresting officer.
George, 201 F.3d at 372.
No. 01-20935
-3-
We reject Lindsay’s argument that he is entitled to a new
trial because the trial court refused to allow his attorney to
ask prospective jurors whether they believed that police officers
are capable of lying. See United States v. Armendariz-Mata, 949
F.2d 151, 156 (5th Cir. 1991).
We also reject Lindsay’s argument that his conviction should
be reversed because the prosecutor bolstered the testimony of
Government witnesses by asking leading questions and presenting
an improper closing argument. The prosecutor’s questions and
argument directly responded to the aspersions cast on the
witnesses by the defense. There is no reversible error. United
States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1367 (5th Cir. 1994).
Lindsay’s argument that the evidence fails to establish that
the firearm found in the field was “in or affecting commerce” as
required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is foreclosed by circuit
precedent. United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir.
2002)(citations omitted); United States v. Short, 181 F.3d 620,
624 (5th Cir. 1999).
Finally, we conclude that Lindsay has failed to show that
cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial. United States v.
Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 418 (5th Cir. 1998); see FED. R. CRIM.
P. 52(a).
AFFIRMED.