United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 15, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
____________________ Clerk
No. 02-31104
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MACK F. SLATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(00-CR-20058-6)
_________________________________________________________________
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mack F. Slate appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine base and distribution of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846.
Slate contends the district court erred by: (1) allowing into
evidence a “mugshot” of Slate; and (2) prior to the admission of
that photograph, denying his motion for mistrial after a Government
witness testified that Slate had a criminal record. Both issues
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Carrillo,
20 F.3d 617, 620 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., 513 U.S. 901
(1994)(admission of photograph); United States v. Millsaps, 157
F.3d 989, 993 (5th Cir. 1998)(denial of motion for mistrial).
The Government had a demonstrable need to introduce the
photograph; it had no identifying marks or features that would
indicate it was a “mugshot”; there was no testimony concerning the
source of the photograph; and the timing of its introduction would
not lead to the conclusion that it was a “mugshot”. Accordingly,
its admission was not an abuse of discretion. See Carrillo,
20 F.3d at 620.
In the light of the substantial evidence against Slate, he has
not demonstrated there is a significant possibility that the
prejudicial remark by the Government witness had a substantial
impact on the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d
836, 844 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 919 (1998). Moreover,
the district court issued a curative instruction. See Millsaps,
157 F.3d at 993. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in
denying a mistrial. See Paul, 142 F.3d at 844.
AFFIRMED
2