## Facts

- Undercover officers arranged to buy 1.5 kilograms of cocaine from Jose Hernandez at 4506 Spatz Avenue in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
- During the April 4, 2003 transaction inside the house, Hernandez produced a one-kilogram brick of cocaine; when asked about the remaining half-kilogram, Hernandez asked Roberto Serrano (present in the house) where it was.
- Serrano twice pointed to a cabinet and stated the cocaine was “in the corner,” enabling Hernandez to retrieve and deliver the half-kilogram to the undercover officer.
- After arrests and a search warrant, officers found drug-trafficking items and contraband at the residence, including firearms, marijuana, scales and packaging materials, and in the basement a cocaine press and cutting chemicals.
- In Serrano’s wallet, officers found an Indiana driver’s license and a state ID card bearing his photograph and the name “Eddie Roncone”; the driver’s license listed the Spatz Avenue address.
- Officers had also recovered from trash outside the Spatz Avenue residence automobile-insurance documents and related correspondence in the name “Eddie Roncone” listing the Spatz Avenue address.
- Serrano told an officer he lived at the Spatz Avenue address, but at trial he claimed he previously lived there and lived elsewhere at the time of the raid, arguing he was not part of an ongoing operation at the house.
- Over hearsay objections, the district court admitted the IDs and insurance-related documents to show Serrano’s connection to the Spatz Avenue residence; Serrano was convicted of aiding and abetting distribution of cocaine.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred, over hearsay objections, by admitting IDs and insurance-related documents bearing “Eddie Roncone” and the Spatz Avenue address to link Serrano to the residence.
2. If admission was erroneous, whether the error required reversal of Serrano’s conviction for aiding and abetting cocaine distribution.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the challenged documents were properly admitted as used at trial to show Serrano’s connection to the premises, and they were relevant to rebut Serrano’s non-residency defense.
- The court rejected the argument that the evidence should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
- Even assuming arguable error, any evidentiary mistake did not affect Serrano’s substantial rights given the strength of the government’s proof of assistance in the transaction and the drug-operation evidence at the house.

## Legal Principles

- A statement is hearsay only if offered for the truth of the matter asserted; documents showing a name and address may be admissible when offered as circumstantial evidence linking a person to a location rather than as proof that the address is “true.”
- Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a consequential fact more or less probable; proof tying a defendant to a drug-house address is relevant when the defense claims non-residence or lack of involvement beyond presence.
- Rule 403 excludes relevant evidence only when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; evidence is not unfairly prejudicial merely because it harms the defense.
- On appeal, evidentiary rulings do not warrant reversal absent a showing that any error affected substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Serrano’s aiding-and-abetting conviction, ruling that IDs and insurance papers bearing an alias and the drug-house address were admissible as relevant, nonhearsay circumstantial evidence of his connection to the premises and were not excludable as unfairly prejudicial.


United States v. Serrano, 434 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir. 2006)