United States v. Sampson , 110 F. App'x 382 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 27, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50306
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MARIA SAMPSON
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-02-CR-301-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Sampson appeals her conviction after a jury trial of
assault within the maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States. Sampson argues that the evidence is insufficient
to show that she assaulted her 12-year-old adopted son or that
the alleged assault occurred within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States. She also argues
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 03-50306
-2-
that the district court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence and
that she was unlawfully arrested.
The victim of the assault testified that Sampson struck him
three or four times with a belt and that she had caused some of
the bruises on his back. Physicians testified that there were
pattern bruises on the victim’s back and that some of the bruises
had been inflicted recently. The school officials to whom the
victim reported the abuse also provided corroborating testimony
regarding the recent nature of the victim’s wounds. The victim
stated that the incident occurred at his home, and there was
testimony that the home was located on Lackland Air Force Base
and was within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United States. The evidence is sufficient to support the
determination that Sampson assaulted her adopted son and that
this assault took place within the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See United States
v. Perrien, 274 F.3d 936, 939-40 (5th Cir. 2001).
Sampson has not established error with respect to the
testimony that she cites as hearsay evidence. Her objections to
Agent John Whitson’s testimony that the victim told him that his
injuries were caused by Sampson and to the admission of a portion
of a medical record were sustained by the district court. Dr.
Reginald Moore testified that the victim stated that he sustained
injuries from fingernails while he was being choked and that he
was hit with a shoe and with a broom. This evidence was
No. 03-50306
-3-
admissible pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 803(4) as statements made for
the purpose of medical treatment.
To the extent Sampson challenges other statements made by
Moore, she did not object to this testimony and, given the
victim’s testimony, it was not plain error to admit it. See
United States v. Cantu, 167 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 1999).
Sampson did not object to the cited testimony of Terry Bills and
Mary Catherine Norton, and the admission of this testimony was
cumulative and did not constitute plain error.
Sampson objected to Dr. Shane Stokes’s testimony that the
victim told him that it was Sampson who struck him. This
evidence also was cumulative and was harmless in light of the
strength of the prosecution’s case and defense counsel’s ability
to cross-examine the witness. To the extent that Sampson raises
additional testimony by Stokes as hearsay she has not established
plain error because his statements either were not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted, or were not material to
determining whether Sampson assaulted the victim. Accordingly,
Sampson has not shown that her substantial rights were affected
by the erroneous admission of any hearsay evidence.
Sampson does not support her argument that she was
unlawfully arrested with any record evidence, other than to show
that she was questioned regarding the incident. Her contention
that she was unlawfully arrested is at odds with her argument
that she cooperated with investigators and spoke to them freely.
No. 03-50306
-4-
In denying Sampson’s motion to suppress, the district court found
that the record showed that Sampson was advised several times
that she was not in custody. The court also noted that she was a
law school graduate. Sampson’s conclusional assertion that she
was arrested unlawfully is insufficient to establish error. See
United States v. Volksen, 766 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1985).
AFFIRMED.