United States v. Mahler, 71-1452.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1452.,71-1452. |
| Citation | 452 F.2d 547 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Eugene MAHLER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Philip A. DeMassa (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Brian E. Michaels, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Robert H. Filsinger, Asst. U. S. Atty. & Chief, Criminal Division, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HUFSTEDLER and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON, District Judge.*
Certiorari Denied April 17, 1972. See 92 S.Ct. 1517.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for concealing and removing court documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071, following a jury trial. We affirm.
The critical issue on this appeal is the admissibility of certain evidence. There is no doubt about its relevance. It was relevant to the defendant's motive. Such relevant evidence is not rendered inadmissible because it is of a highly prejudicial nature. Smith v. Rhay, 419 F.2d 160 (9th Cir. 1969); Loux v. United States, 389 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1968); Reed v. United States, 364 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1966).
Appellant's complaint is that the relevance is so slight and the potential for prejudicial effect is so great that the evidence should have been excluded. We likewise agree with appellant that the evidence was prejudicial. The best evidence often is.
The question of the admissibility of evidence under these circumstances is one of balance which is addressed to the trial court's discretion, subject to review. Hernandez v. United States, 370 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1966).
It is quite possible that other judges, as triers of fact, would have exercised their discretion in a different manner. We cannot say, however, that the ruling of the trial judge was a clear abuse of discretion.
The judgment is affirmed.
* Honorable Warren J. Ferguson, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Booth
...relevant to the firearm violation. Relevant evidence is not rendered inadmissible merely because it is prejudicial. United States v. Mahler, 452 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1069, 92 S.Ct. 1517, 31 L.Ed.2d 801 (1972). Instead, evidence should be suppressed under Rul......
-
U.S. v. Parker
...value of the evidence before a court may properly exclude it. Federal Rules of Evidence 403. As this court stated in United States v. Mahler, 452 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1069, 92 S.Ct. 1517, 31 L.Ed.2d 801 (1972), evidence relevant to a defendant's motive "is not re......
-
U.S. v. Martin
...that the evidence should be excluded is a determination in which the trial court is given wide discretion. E. g., United States v. Mahler, 452 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1971), Cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1069, 92 S.Ct. 1517, 31 L.Ed.2d 801 (1972). Under the facts of the present case, we cannot say that......
-
State v. LeFever
...value of the evidence before a court may properly exclude it. Federal Rules of Evidence 403. As this court stated in United States v. Mahler, 452 F.2d 547 (9th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1069, 92 S.Ct. 1517, 31 L.Ed.2d 801 (1972), evidence relevant to a defendant's motive "is not ren......