U.S. v. Saniti
| Decision Date | 13 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1026,79-1026 |
| Citation | 604 F.2d 603 |
| Parties | 4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1133 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Michael SANITI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mark E. Griffin, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant.
Kristine O. Rogers, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before WALLACE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MURRAY, * District Judge.
Saniti was convicted of bank robbery pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We affirm.
Relying upon Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958), Saniti contends that the district court committed reversible error when it compelled his wife to testify against him. Even assuming the legal issue was properly raised in this case, there is a narrow exception to the husband-wife privilege when the marriage is not entered into in good faith. See Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 73 S.Ct. 481, 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953); United States v. Mathis, 559 F.2d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 1977). Thus, if it were a sham, the purported marriage could not be used to invoke the privilege. The district judge held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the validity of the marriage for the purpose of the husband-wife privilege, and concluded that it was indeed a sham. 1 The determination that the marriage was a sham was a finding of fact which cannot be set aside unless it is clearly erroneous. Here it was not. There was adequate evidence to substantiate it.
Saniti next contends that the district court improperly admitted into evidence testimony that he was addicted to heroin at the time of the bank robbery. We disagree. Evidence that he had a $250-a-day heroin and morphine habit was properly admitted to show his motive for robbing the bank. Evidence that tends to show that a defendant is living beyond his means is of probative value in a case involving a crime resulting in financial gain. United States v. Tierney, 424 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 400 U.S. 850, 91 S.Ct. 53, 27 L.Ed.2d 87 (1970); United States v. Falley, 489 F.2d 33, 39 (2d Cir. 1973). The trial court was within its wide discretion in admitting this evidence. See United States v. Fernandez, 497 F.2d 730, 735 (9th Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 990, 95 S.Ct. 1423, 43 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975). Saniti's reliance upon United States v. Blackshire, 538 F.2d 569 (4th Cir.), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 840, 97 S.Ct. 113, 50 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976), is not persuasive. There evidence of narcotics addiction was admitted only to impugn a witness' credibility. Id. at 572.
Saniti next contends that the district judge improperly allowed lay witnesses to give opinion evidence identifying Saniti as the person in bank surveillance photographs. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses may be admitted if the opinion is "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to . . . the determination of a fact in issue." Fed.R.Evid 701. The two witnesses who identified Saniti as the person in the surveillance photographs were his roommates. Their perceptions of his appearance and clothing were rationally based upon their association with him. The two witnesses were able to identify the clothing on the person in the photograph as belonging to Saniti. That clothing was not available to the jury for comparison. Saniti's reliance upon the cases involving expert testimony is misplaced, for they are not in point.
Saniti's final argument pertains to an exhibit consisting of a bank photograph with an attached photographic overlay which the district judge admitted in evidence. Both the bank surveillance photograph and the overlay, which was made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanchez
...48 F.3d at 5 (the testifying witnesses had seen the defendant wear a coat similar to the coat worn by the robber); United States v. Saniti, 604 F.2d 603, 605 (9th Cir. 1979) (the testifying witnesses identified the defendant's clothing shown in surveillance photograph, and that clothing was......
-
State v. Gore
...including items of clothing worn, at the time that the surveillance video or photographs were taken; see, e.g., United States v. Saniti , 604 F.2d 603, 605 (9th Cir.) (roommates allowed to identify defendant in surveillance footage based both on general familiarity with defendant and famili......
-
State v. LeFever
...Jones v. Maryland, 38 Md.App. 432, 381 A.2d 317 (1978); Powell v. State, 478 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). Contra, United States v. Saniti, 604 F.2d 603 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 461, 62 L.Ed.2d 384 (1979); United States v. Parker, 549 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir.), cert. de......
-
U.S. v. Sarno
...788 F.2d 544, 557 (9th Cir.1986) (bank robbery), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067, 107 S.Ct. 955, 93 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1987); United States v. Saniti, 604 F.2d 603, 604 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 461, 62 L.Ed.2d 384 (1979). The Government suggests, not altogether unreas......
-
Table of Cases null
...Evid. Serv. 673 (9th Cir. 1991)—Ch. 4-B, §3.5 U.S. v. Sandoval, 200 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2000)—Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(1)(b)[3][a] U.S. v. Saniti, 604 F.2d 603, 4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1133 (9th Cir. 1979)—Ch. 4-C, §9.1.6(2) U.S. v. San Juan-Cruz, 314 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2002)— Ch. 5-C, §2.2.1(1)(a) U.S......
-
Chapter 4 - §9. Spousal privileges
...considered lawful in the jurisdiction where it was contracted. See Lutwak v. U.S. (1953) 344 U.S. 604, 614; U.S. v. Saniti (9th Cir.1979) 604 F.2d 603, 604. Although one scholar suggests this rule also applies to California proceedings (see 2 Witkin, California Evidence (5th ed.), Witnesses......
-
§ 39.02 Spousal Testimonial Privilege
...together as husband and wife but only for the purpose of using the marriage ceremony in a scheme to defraud"); United States v. Saniti, 604 F.2d 603, 604 (9th Cir. 1979) ("there is a narrow exception to the husband-wife privilege when the marriage is not entered into in good faith"); United......
-
§ 39.02 SPOUSAL TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
...together as husband and wife but only for the purpose of using the marriage ceremony in a scheme to defraud"); United States v. Saniti, 604 F.2d 603, 604 (9th Cir. 1979) ("there is a narrow exception to the husband-wife privilege when the marriage is not entered into in good faith"); United......