United States v. Donald Salois , 578 F. App'x 656 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30145
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00052-DLC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DONALD CARL SALOIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 3, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOODWIN, McKEOWN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Donald Salois appeals the district court’s judgement following his jury
conviction for Aggravated Sexual Abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and
2241(a)(1), assigning error to two evidentiary rulings. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
evidentiary rulings, and de novo whether an evidentiary issue rises to the level of a
constitutional violation. United States v. Pineda-Doval, 614 F.3d 1019, 1031-32
(9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of
Salois’s prior acts of sexual misconduct because it properly determined that the
risk of prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. See Fed. R.
Evid. 403, 413; United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2001)
(describing non-exclusive factors that courts should consider in making that
determination). LeMay also forecloses Salois’s constitutional arguments. See 260
F.3d at 1026-31.
The district court did not err in excluding evidence of prior sexual acts
between Salois and the victim because it properly determined that the risk of
prejudice and other legitimate concerns outweighed the probative value of the
evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, 412; Wood v. Alaska, 957 F.2d 1544, 1550 (9th
Cir. 1992) (“Because trial judges have broad discretion both to determine relevance
and to determine whether prejudicial effect or other concerns outweigh the
probative value of the evidence, we will find a [constitutional] violation only if we
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.”).
AFFIRMED.
2