United States v. Torres

1

United States of America, Appellee, v. Aquilino Torres, Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-2665-cr

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

January 25, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of January, two thousand twenty-three.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.).

For Appellee: David J. Robles, Assistant United States Attorney (Sarah L. Kushner and David Abramowicz, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

For Defendant-Appellant: Sarah Baumgartel, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY.

PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, ALISON J. NATHAN Circuit Judges.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Aquilino Torres appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on October 19, 2021. Following a jury trial, Torres was found guilty of: (1) kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) and (b); (2) kidnapping of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) (b), and (g); and (3) stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 2261A(2)(A) and (B), 2261(b)(3), and 2265A. The district court sentenced Torres principally to 292 months' imprisonment on each of the kidnapping counts and 240 months' imprisonment on the stalking count, with all three sentences to run concurrently, followed by five years of supervised release.

These convictions related to Torres's assault, kidnapping, and stalking of his then-romantic partner ("Adult Victim") and her seven-year-old son ("Minor Victim") in 2020. As part of the government's evidence at trial, Adult Victim testified to the following: On October 5, 2020, Torres took Adult Victim and Minor Victim via train to a motel in the Bronx where Torres locked the door. Over the course of the night, Torres broke Adult Victim's jaw in several places and raped her. He also slapped Minor Victim's face. While Torres was assaulting Adult Victim, he told her about how he abused a prior romantic partner ("Prior Adult Victim"). Torres told Adult Victim that he had stabbed Prior Adult Victim, left Prior Adult Victim with nothing to eat or drink, and that Prior Adult Victim was "lucky to call the ambulance in time for her to survive." App'x at 231-32. Torres then said he would "hang" Adult Victim and that "they will find [Minor Victim's] body in the river the next day." App'x at 232. The following morning, Torres took Adult Victim and Minor Victim to an apartment in Washington Heights, warning her "not to do anything stupid."

App'x at 248. Over the next five days, Torres refused to let Adult Victim or Minor Victim leave the apartment, despite Adult Victim expressing that she needed medical attention for her broken jaw. Although Torres left the apartment several times over the five days and Adult Victim had her cellphone while he was away, she did not initially attempt to escape or ask for help due to her fear of Torres. However, on the evening of their fifth day of confinement at the apartment, after Torres left the apartment, Adult Victim took her son and fled to a domestic violence shelter where she had previously stayed. After Torres realized that Adult Victim had escaped, he texted and called her hundreds of times, threatening to find and harm her. In addition to Adult Victim's testimony, the government introduced, among other things, medical testimony and records relating to Adult Victim's injuries, numerous threatening and harassing messages that Torres sent to Adult Victim, video surveillance footage, and cellphone location data.

On appeal, Torres argues that he must be granted a new trial on the kidnapping counts and resentenced on the stalking count. Specifically, Torres contends that his conviction on the kidnapping counts must be vacated because the district court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior assault committed by Torres. Additionally, although Torres does not challenge his conviction on the stalking count, he argues that resentencing is required because the district court erroneously applied the recidivist sentencing provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2265A, leading it to determine that the offense's statutory maximum was twenty years of imprisonment, rather than ten years, and sentenced him to twenty years. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

I. Evidentiary Ruling

On appeal, Torres argues he must be granted a new trial on the kidnapping counts because the district court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence regarding Prior Adult Victim, whom Torres had stalked, threatened, and assaulted in 2013. Specifically, Prior Adult Victim testified that she had been in a romantic relationship with Torres between 2010 and 2013, during which they had three children together, and that after they broke up in 2013, Torres held her- against her will-in an apartment for two-to-three weeks and viciously assaulted her, raped her, and beat her with a belt when she tried to leave. Furthermore, she testified that she was only freed when law enforcement visited the apartment and discovered her behind a door that Torres had barricaded. In addition to Prior Adult Victim's testimony, the district court admitted into evidence Prior Adult Victim's medical records related to the 2013 assault, and the transcript from the state court proceeding in which Torres pleaded guilty to assaulting Prior Adult Victim (collectively, "prior assault evidence").

The district court, over Torres's objection, admitted the prior assault evidence on two separate grounds-namely, (1) as prior act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove Torres's knowledge and intent with respect to the charged kidnappings of Adult Victim and Minor Victim, and (2) as "inextricably intertwined" with the charged crimes, App'x at 64, in order to demonstrate the state of mind of Adult Victim to whom Torres had allegedly recounted his abuse of Prior Adult Victim during the charged kidnappings. The district court also concluded that the balancing of the factors under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 "weigh[ed] in favor of admitting the evidence" because the evidence (1) would be a presented in a "relatively streamlined" manner with no "suggest[ion] that it [would] result in confusion" and (2) would not be unduly prejudicial because the prior assault evidence was "no more sensational or disturbing" than the allegations relating to the charged crimes. App'x at 54-56 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We review evidentiary rulings "deferentially" and will reverse them "only for abuse of discretion[,] which we will identify only if the ruling was arbitrary and irrational." United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 131 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under Rule 404(b), evidence of a person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted to prove, among other things, knowledge and intent. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). "Our Circuit takes an inclusionary approach to the admission of prior crimes evidence, under which such evidence is admissible for any purpose other than to show the defendant's criminal propensity." United States v. McCallum, 584 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To determine if evidence was properly admitted under Rule 404(b), we consider "whether (1) it was offered for a proper purpose; (2) it was relevant to a material issue in dispute; (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if so requested by the defendant." United States v. Scott, 677 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (noting that this inquiry is derived from Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)). Applying that framework, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior assault evidence.

With respect to the requisite proper purpose, the district court was well within its discretion in finding that the prior assault evidence was probative of Torres's knowledge and intent with respect to the charged kidnappings. See United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44, 63 (2d Cir. 2019) (noting that district courts "have significant discretion in determining whether other-crimes evidence is admissible for a proper purpose"). As we have explained "[w]here a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind necessary to commit the offense charged." United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the kidnapping counts required the government to prove that Torres ...