United States v. Roger Paul Hamel

Appellant, a taxidermist, was convicted of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (the Act) by offering to sell and barter and causing to be transported snowy owls after they became a protected species under the Act in March of 1972. [ 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 707.] We affirm.

The indictment did not allege the time of appellant’s taking of the snowy owl. It charged that his acts were done willfully and knowingly. The defendant offered no evidence.

He had been convicted before of similar misdemeanor offenses involving golden eagles and mountain goats, both protected species. He assigns as error the trial court’s ruling that evidence of these prior acts would be admissible. They were neither offered nor admitted because, after the ruling, defendant chose not to testify.

Before the start of the trial and again at the close of the government’s case, appellant sought a ruling on whether his prior convictions could be introduced for impeachment purposes. The court agreed that they could not be introduced for impeachment purposes but ruled that they would be admissible as prior similar acts. Fed.Rules of Evid. 404(b). E.g., United States v. Grammer, 513 F.2d 673, 677 (9th Cir.…