Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Alex A. Maldonado, Also Known as Alejandro A. Maldonado
Citations: 73 F.3d 364; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40645; 1995 WL 754100Docket: 95-1920
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; December 17, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
In November 1994, Alex A. Maldonado was charged with carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119. Following a two-day jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced in March 1995 to 115 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $772 in restitution. On May 17, 1994, Shawn Morningstar's Oldsmobile was carjacked while he was stopped at an intersection in Gary, Indiana. Morningstar identified Maldonado as the assailant who entered his car armed with a gun. Although he did not recall Maldonado making any verbal threats, a police officer testified that Morningstar had previously stated Maldonado told him to "give it up." Witness John Kratkoczki testified that Maldonado attempted to sell him a car similar to Morningstar's the day after the incident. Maldonado claimed he received the car from another individual, Tony Cuevas, who denied this. Maldonado argued that the district court erred by allowing testimony from Mark Laughlin regarding a prior theft of a gun by Maldonado. This testimony was admitted under Rule 404(b) to demonstrate that Maldonado's exculpatory statement about not owning a gun was false, indicating consciousness of guilt. The court instructed the jury to consider this testimony only for that purpose. Maldonado contended that the differing descriptions of the gun—Laughlin’s black gun versus Morningstar’s chrome gun—rendered Laughlin's testimony prejudicial. However, both witnesses identified the gun as a 9mm, which the jury could reasonably link. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting Laughlin's testimony. Lastly, Maldonado claimed the evidence was insufficient to prove he acted with the intent required under § 2119, which necessitates taking a vehicle "by force and violence or by intimidation." The evidence, particularly the brandishing of a gun, satisfied this requirement. The court affirmed the judgment.