## Facts

- In September 1986, narcotics agents surveilled Fabio Jaramillo-Suarez, focusing on an apartment in San Juan Capistrano he frequently used, a blue BMW he drove, and his contacts (including Carmen Wilkinson).
- Agents observed Jaramillo-Suarez engage in repeated phone calls, meet codefendant Michael Eliott, and participate in travel, meetings, and vehicle switching consistent with suspected drug trafficking activity.
- Agents stopped Eliott near the end of the surveillance period; a consent search of Eliott’s truck revealed cocaine.
- A search of the San Juan Capistrano apartment associated with Jaramillo-Suarez produced cocaine, large amounts of cash, and drug-related documents, including a “pay/owe sheet” with notations consistent with narcotics accounting.
- Jaramillo-Suarez was tried and convicted by a jury in federal district court of (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine with intent to distribute and (2) possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.

## Issues

1. Whether the “pay/owe sheet” was inadmissible hearsay or admissible as nonhearsay because it was offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of its entries.
2. Whether the government established a sufficient foundation for the document’s admission, including through agent expert testimony identifying it as a drug “pay/owe sheet.”
3. Whether admitting the document constituted impermissible other-acts propensity evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the pay/owe sheet was not hearsay because it was admitted to show the character and use of the apartment where it was found, not to prove the truth of the document’s notations.
- The court found an adequate foundation for admission, including expert testimony from an experienced narcotics agent explaining the document’s typical use in drug trafficking.
- The court rejected the Rule 404(b) challenge, concluding the exhibit was admitted for a non-propensity purpose, was not tied to specific prior acts by the defendant, and was accompanied by a limiting instruction.
- The court concluded that the remaining claimed evidentiary and procedural errors did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A writing is not hearsay when it is admitted for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matters asserted in the writing.
- Drug-related records may be admitted as nonhearsay to show the character and purpose of premises (e.g., that the location was used for drug trafficking), when not offered to prove the accuracy of the recorded transactions or the identity of the recorder.
- Qualified law enforcement officers may provide expert testimony, based on experience, to identify documents and explain their significance in narcotics trafficking.
- Evidence admitted for a non-propensity purpose does not violate Rule 404(b) where it is not used to prove character-based propensity and the jury receives an appropriate limiting instruction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Jaramillo-Suarez’s cocaine conspiracy and possession convictions, ruling that the pay/owe sheet found in the apartment was properly admitted as nonhearsay to show the nature of the premises, supported by sufficient foundation and expert testimony, and without violating Rule 404(b).


United States v. Jaramillo-Suarez, 950 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1991)