S.Ct. Crim. No. 2012-0020

Defendant's convictions for several crimes, including rape and murder, are affirmed. Denial of his motion in limine to exclude testimony of his business partner because it conflicted with that of the rape victim was not error since that testimony was not prejudicial to defendant, and conflicts in the proof cannot reasonably be said to have confused the jury, which determines the credibility of witnesses in a jury trial. Here the jury was properly instructed on how to rationalize conflicting testimony. Nor was the defendant prejudiced by the trial court's sua sponte action in setting time parameters regarding the demand for notice of an alibi defense. While trial court erred when it admitted a smiling, in-life photo of the victim into evidence, creating the risk of arousing sympathy in the jury, that error was harmless considering the overwhelming evidence presented against the defendant. The argument that exclusion of certain evidence attacking the rape victim's credibility was error is barred by this defendant's failure to follow the motion procedure required by Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 412(b) and (c). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the testimony of the defense's expert forensic pathology witness, including his opinion on the identity of the assailant, since any such testimony would invade the province of the jury and lay outside the scope of the doctor's expertise. It was thus inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and Rule 703 for lack of a reasonable foundation. Finally the evidence to convict was sufficient and a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant possessed the requisite malice aforethought which is manifested by the evidence on record. Evidence of defendant's rape and assault was overwhelming. The convictions are affirmed.