Villa
United States v. Villa
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Ricardo Villa appeals his conviction for Importation of Marijuana and Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 952, and 960. Villa argues that the district court erred in admitting the purported adoptive admission. We review a district' court’s evidentiary decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Alviso, 152 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.1998).
Before admitting a proffered admission by silence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B), the district court must find that “sufficient foundational facts have been introduced for the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant did actually hear, understand, and accede to the statement.” United States v. Sears, 663 F.2d 896, 904 (9th Cir.1981).
Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and considered evidence which may have sustained a jury finding that Villa was aware of his father’s statement, but this evidence alone does little to establish “whether under the circumstances an innocent defendant would normally be induced to respond.” Id. at 904 , citing United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir.1975).