United States v. Tajma Murphy

MEMORANDUM

Tajma De Marcus Murphy appeals his conviction and sentence on charges of importing cocaine. We affirm.

I

Although the parties dispute whether Murphy preserved an objection to admissibility of prior-act evidence and thus whether our review is de novo or for abuse of discretion, we see no reversible error regardless of which standard is applied. In context, Murphy’s statement to Agent Stevens that he had previously been recruited to drive loads across the border as well as to drive loads from Nogales and Rio Rico to Tucson helped explain how and why he became an informant. Murphy’s position was that he made no such statement and the testimony was inadmissible because it was false; the jury disbelieved him. He did not otherwise argue that admitting the statement offended Rule 404(b) or Rule 403 and we cannot see how it plainly did. Nor did the district court err by failing to give a limiting instruction given the way the testimony unfolded. In any event, the court’s general instructions admonished the jury that Murphy was on trial only for the crimes charged in the indictment, not for any other activities. See United States v. Soliman, 813 F.2d 277, 279 (9th…