## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged José A. Vega-Figueroa (“Vega-Figueroa”) with running a large-scale drug operation in Puerto Rico and using violence and firearms to protect the business and its territory.
- A grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging: (1) continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) under 21 U.S.C. § 848; (2) drug-distribution conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 involving large quantities of multiple controlled substances; and (3) using or carrying firearms during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), including aiding and abetting.
- At trial, the government called Aleida Gotay Sáez (“Sáez”), a participant and leader in a competing drug enterprise in the same area.
- Sáez testified that she attended a meeting where Vega-Figueroa discussed merging the two enterprises.
- Sáez also testified that she witnessed the murder of her sister, who was involved in the competing enterprise.
- Sáez stated that Vega-Figueroa’s organization killed her sister because the competing enterprise was selling more drugs than Vega-Figueroa’s enterprise.
- The defense extensively cross-examined Sáez, including on her criminal involvement and the basis for her statements.
- The jury convicted Vega-Figueroa on all counts, and the district court imposed life imprisonment on the CCE and conspiracy counts, plus a consecutive five-year term on the § 924(c) count.
- Vega-Figueroa appealed, challenging (among other matters) the admission of Sáez’s testimony as improper lay opinion.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err by admitting Sáez’s testimony about why Vega-Figueroa’s organization killed her sister as lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to support Vega-Figueroa’s CCE conviction, including proof that he organized, supervised, or managed at least five other persons and obtained substantial income or resources?
3. Did the admission of evidence about murders, firearms, and other violent acts require exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 as unfairly prejudicial?
4. Were Vega-Figueroa’s convictions and sentences, including life terms and the consecutive § 924(c) sentence, legally valid?

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed Vega-Figueroa’s convictions and sentences.
- The court held that Sáez’s challenged statements were admissible under Rule 701 because they were based on her firsthand observations and participation in the drug milieu and helped the jury understand the rivalry and the charged enterprise’s enforcement methods.
- The court emphasized that Sáez was thoroughly cross-examined, which allowed the jury to evaluate her credibility and the basis for her testimony.
- The court concluded the record contained sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find the elements of a continuing criminal enterprise beyond a reasonable doubt, including Vega-Figueroa’s leadership role, the involvement of five or more participants, and substantial proceeds.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of violence and firearms where it helped explain how the organization operated and maintained control, and where the trial court’s management did not create unfair prejudice.
- The court upheld the life sentences on the drug counts as authorized by statute and upheld the consecutive five-year sentence under § 924(c) as required to run consecutively to other terms of imprisonment.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A CCE conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 848 requires proof of: a continuing series of felony drug violations; committed in concert with five or more other persons; for whom the defendant acted as an organizer, supervisor, or manager; and from which the defendant obtained substantial income or resources.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 701 permits lay opinion testimony when it is rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to understanding the witness’s testimony or deciding a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.
- Evidence of violence connected to a drug enterprise may be admitted when it helps prove the existence, structure, and methods of the enterprise and is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
- A sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) must run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed Vega-Figueroa’s CCE, drug-conspiracy, and § 924(c) convictions and the resulting life sentences plus a consecutive firearms term, holding that the district court properly admitted a rival trafficker’s lay testimony under Rule 701 about the motive for a retaliatory killing and that the remaining evidentiary, sufficiency, and sentencing challenges did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Vega-Figueroa, 234 F.3d 744 (2000)