United States v. Meeks

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Meeks

82 F. App'x 990

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 2003

Docket03-60139

StatusUnpublished

This text of 82 F. App'x 990 (United States v. Meeks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Meeks, 82 F. App'x 990 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Deborah Theresa Meeks appeals her convictions for mail fraud and money laundering. She argues that the district court erred by admitting the testimony of certain witnesses at trial. We review the district court’s ruling on the admissibility of testimony for abuse of discretion. 2 We AFFIRM.

Meeks’ first contention is that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Antonio Johnson regarding statements made to him by Gloria Johnson. We disagree. The district court admitted the prior inconsistent statements made by Gloria to impeach her trial testimony. 2

Meeks also contends that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to present to the jury a portion of the grand jury testimony of Chaquita Hill. We agree with Meeks that the court erred in allowing this testimony to be admitted as a recorded recollection because there was no predicate showing that, at the time Hill provided her grand jury testimony, the relevant conversation was “fresh in [her] memory.” 3 However, any error in admitting this testimony was harmless. 4 The grand jury testimony was merely cumulative of other testimony in the record, and its admission at trial did not affect Meeks’ substantial rights. 5

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

2

. United States v. Moody, 903 F.2d 321, 326 (5th Cir.1990).

2

. See United States v. Polasek, 162 F.3d 878, 883 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Sisto, 534 F.2d 616, 622 (5th Cir.1976).

3

. United States v. Judon, 567 F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir.1978).

4

. See United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.1996).

5

. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

Deborah Theresa Meeks appeals her convictions for mail fraud and money laundering. She argues that the district court erred by admitting the testimony of certain witnesses at trial. We review the district court’s ruling on the admissibility of testimony for abuse of discretion. 2 We AFFIRM.

Meeks’ first contention is that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Antonio Johnson regarding statements made to him by Gloria Johnson. We disagree. The district court admitted the prior inconsistent statements made by Gloria to impeach her trial testimony. 2

Meeks also contends that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecution to present to the jury a portion of the grand jury testimony of Chaquita Hill. We agree with Meeks that the court erred in allowing this testimony to be admitted as a recorded recollection because there was no predicate showing that, at the time Hill provided her grand jury testimony, the relevant conversation was “fresh in [her] memory.” 3 However, any error in admitting this testimony was harmless. 4 The grand jury testimony was merely cumulative of other testimony in the record, and its admission at trial did not affect Meeks’ substantial rights. 5

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

*

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.

2

. United States v. Moody, 903 F.2d 321, 326 (5th Cir.1990).

2

. See United States v. Polasek, 162 F.3d 878, 883 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Sisto, 534 F.2d 616, 622 (5th Cir.1976).

3

. United States v. Judon, 567 F.2d 1289, 1294 (5th Cir.1978).

4

. See United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.1996).

5

. Id.