USA V. DONALD SALOIS, No. 13-30145 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 10 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-30145 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
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.
