Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 431 (9th Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 872 F.2d 431 (9th Cir. 1987)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jesus GONZALES-QUESADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-1154.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 1989.* Decided March 17, 1989.

Before BROWNING, FARRIS and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Jesus Gonzales-Quesada appeals his conviction for reentering

the United States without permission after a prior

lawful deportation, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm.

Gonzales-Quesada contends the district court erred by allowing cross-examination outside the scope of his direct testimony. When a defendant takes the stand, the scope of cross-examination is broad, United States v. Stenberg, 803 F.2d 422, 434 (9th Cir. 1986); the prosecution's questions need only be "reasonably related" to the subject matter of the defendant's testimony. Id.; United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1985). Here Gonzales-Quesada testified on direct examination that his prior deportation was illegal; if true, Gonzales-Quesada could not have been convicted, for section 1326 requires proof of a prior lawful deportation. United States v. Cerda-Pena, 799 F.2d 1374, 1375-76 (9th Cir. 1986). To rebut Gonzales-Quesada's direct testimony, the government elicited on cross-examination that Gonzales-Quesada was a citizen of Mexico, that he had been deported on four previous occasions and that he had not sought permission from the Attorney General to reenter the United States. This testimony was "reasonably related" to the issue raised during direct examination and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the cross-examination.

Gonzales-Quesada also claims there was insufficient evidence for the district court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was previously deported, as required under the statute. This argument is without merit. We will reverse a conviction on this ground only if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Harris, 792 F.2d 866, 868 (9th Cir. 1986). In this case, a Border Patrol agent identified Gonzales-Quesada as the person whom he had fingerprinted and an expert testified that Gonzales-Quesada's prints matched those of the person deported on August 17, 1987. The agent also testified that he witnessed Gonzales-Quesada sign a full confession that was admitted at trial and is not challenged on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.