United States v. Morales, No. 12-10069 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed her conviction of one count of conspiracy to transport aliens who unlawfully came to or entered the United States and three counts of transporting such aliens, in each case for financial gain. The court held that the admission of the forms filled out by Border Patrol agents did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court held, however, that the district court erred in admitting the forms under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay because this exception did not apply to records of government agencies. Here, the aliens' statements that they were in the United States illegally did not qualify as public records. The district court's error in admitting such statements did not substantially affect the verdict and, therefore, was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed convictions for conspiracy to transport aliens who unlawfully came to or entered the United States and for transporting such aliens for private financial private gain, in a case in which the defendant challenged the admissibility of forms filled out by Border Patrol agents in the field, which included statements by the smuggled aliens that they were in the United States illegally. The panel held that admission of the forms did not violate the Confrontation Clause, but that the aliens’ admissions included in the forms were inadmissible hearsay. Because the forms are records of government agencies, the panel held that the district court erred by admitting them under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). The panel also held that the aliens’ statements that they were in the United States illegally do not qualify as public records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) because they do not describe “activities” of the government, and the government does not argue that aliens are under a “duty to report” their immigration status. The panel held that the error was harmless because the erroneously admitted hearsay did not materially affect the verdict.
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.