United States v. Parada

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-50300
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANA MARIA PARADA, also known as Ana Maria Prada,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-00-CR-1572-ALL-H)
November 13, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ana Maria Parada appeals her conviction for possession with
intent to distribute marijuana and importation of marijuana. The
marijuana was found in her automobile at a port of entry. Parada
maintains the rebuttal testimony of Customs Officer Scott — that,
at the port of entry a week before her arrest, he saw her driving
the same automobile in which she was arrested — violated: FED R.
EVID. 608(b) because it amounted to extrinsic evidence of a specific
instance of conduct for impeachment purposes; and FED. R. EVID.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
404(b) because it amounted to evidence of a prior attempt to
smuggle marijuana to prove her character in order to show action in
conformity therewith. “We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Baptiste, 264 F.3d 578, 590 (5th
Cir. 1997); see FED. R. EVID. 103.
Officer Scott’s rebuttal testimony (direct examination) that
he saw Parada driving the vehicle a week before her arrest was not
admitted to prove Parada’s character in order to show action in
conformity with it. Rather, it was presented to impeach Parada’s
testimony that another person had given her the vehicle the day of
her arrest, and the district court so limited the use of the
testimony. Moreover, Officer Scott’s statement that he did not
conduct a sufficiently thorough inspection of the vehicle the first
time he saw Parada in it did not constitute evidence that Parada
had smuggled marijuana previously. Rule 404(b) was inapplicable to
Officer Scott’s testimony.
“Relevant extrinsic evidence is admissible to contradict and
possibly disprove a witness’s testimony about a material issue of
the case.” United States v. Lopez, 979 F.2d 1024, 1034 (5th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, Ozuna Ramirez v. United States, 508 U.S. 913
(1993). Contradiction evidence is not governed by Rule 608(b);
rather, it is governed by the general standards of Rule 403.
Lopez, 979 F.2d at 1033-34. Relevant evidence “may be excluded if
its probative value is substantially outweighed” by, inter alia,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the “danger of unfair prejudice”. FED. R. EVID. 403.
Officer Scott’s testimony on direct examination contradicted
Parada’s testimony concerning material issues: knowledge and
intent. Officer Scott did not indicate explicitly that he
believed Parada was committing a criminal offense when she drove
across the border a week before her arrest; his statement that he
did not adequately inspect the vehicle was not sufficiently
prejudicial as to substantially outweigh the relevance of his
testimony.
To the extent that Parada’s contentions are based on the
subsequent answers Officer Scott gave on cross-examination, Parada
invited any error. “[W]hen injection of inadmissible evidence is
attributable to the actions of the defense, the defense cannot
later object to such ‘invited error’”. See United States v.
Raymer, 876 F.2d 383, 388 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 870
(1989) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --