United States v. Caballero Grajeda

In United States v. Caballero Grajeda, No. 23-50091 (5th Cir. June 25, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions for possession and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various drugs, including methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl. Here, we cover three of the court’s holdings.

Holding 1: The district court did not err by admitting witness testimony about Caballero’s involvement and use of a firearm during an uncharged kidnapping. The Fifth Circuit agreed that the testimony was admissible “to rebut Caballero’s contention during opening argument that he did not know there were drugs in the warehouse or that the furniture he was being paid to move would be used to traffic drugs.” In short, evidence suggested that a man was kidnapped and interrogated for the purpose of discovering the location of certain missing drugs, so the kidnapping testimony showed Caballero’s knowledge and involvement in the drug conspiracy.

Moreover, the kidnapping testimony had a probative value that was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. And to limit any prejudice, the district court had prevented the witness from testimony “(1) that his twin brother has been missing since the kidnapping; and (2) that he was tied to a chair for his entire captivity and forced to relieve himself in the chair.” That limitation was “important” to the Fifth Circuit’s decision, as was the fact that “the testimony was brief and did not occupy more of the jury’s time than evidence of the charged offenses.”

Holding 2: The evidence was sufficient to support both convictions. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit evaluates only whether a reasonable jury could have convicted the defendant, and it views the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Under that rigorous standard, the evidence here was sufficient.

Holding 3: The district court did not err by refusing to give certain jury instructions proposed by Caballero. “A district court does not err by giving a charge that tracks this court’s pattern instructions and is a correct statement of the law. See United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325, 354 (5th Cir. 2009).” And a district court is “not required to adopt additional proposed language,” so it does not “abuse its discretion in declining to do so." (quoting United States v. Toure, 965 F.3d 393, 403 (5th Cir. 2020)).