Unpublished Disposition, 919 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Appellant contends insufficient evidence was presented to convict him and that he was denied a fair trial because of improper questioning by the prosecution. We affirm.

Because appellant did not raise the issues properly in the district court, we review only for plain error. United States v. Comerford, 857 F.2d 1323, 1324 (9th Cir. 1988) (nonrenewed motion for acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence reviewed for miscarriage of justice or plain error); United States v. Birges, 723 F.2d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 1984) (prosecutorial misconduct not objected to at trial reviewed for plain error).

On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Robles, a government informant, as to the reasons for his relocation from Mexico to the United States. On redirect, the government asked Robles whether he had moved for "security reasons." Before the witness could answer defense counsel objected and the objection was sustained. Appellant asserts this exchange prejudiced him by leaving the jury with the impression that Robles' life was in danger.

Appellant's claim is without merit. The court instructed the jury that counsel's questions were not evidence and the jury should not speculate as to the answer to questions to which objections have been sustained. It is presumed the jury followed the court's instructions, Parker v. Rudolph, 442 U.S. 62, 73 (1979). There is nothing to indicate the jury did not. Moreover, since defense counsel raised the issue of Robles' reasons for relocating on cross-examination, the trial judge could have permitted Robles to answer the prosecutor's question. See Burgess v. Premiere Corporation, 727 F.2d 826, 834 (9th Cir. 1984).

We also reject appellant's claim the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Two informants testified to appellant's involvement in the crimes charged. Appellant was seen inside the apartment where the heroin was picked up; he was heard discussing the heroin deal; he was seen entering a room in which the heroin was cut up; he was seen carrying the bag of heroin in his pocket, placing it in the car in which it was eventually found, and driving the car to the scene of the arrest. On this evidence a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This is all that is required. United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.2d 774, 777 (9th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.