United States v. Francisco Beas

MEMORANDUM

Francisco Beas appeals his conviction for importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of Officer Banks’ testimony over Beas’ objections. Banks’ impression that Beas was nervous and posed a potential safety risk was permissible lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 and tended to prove an essential element of the offense: that Beas knew he was importing a controlled substance. Any prejudice caused by the testimony was outweighed by its relevance. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. ‘ Furthermore, Banks’ testimony explaining why he referred Beas to the secondary inspection area was relevant as circumstantial evidence of Beas’ state of mind and to provide context for the jury. See United States v. Munoz, 412 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Gutierrez-Espinosa, 516 F.2d 249, 250 (9th Cir.1975).

The remaining statements to which Beas objects constituted permissible opinion testimony. Banks’ observation that Beas appeared to be looking for exits was premised on Banks’ own observations and perceptions and, as…