Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04996/USCOURTS-ca4-06-04996-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Cornelius Day
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4996

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE CORNELIUS DAY, a/k/a Corn,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Walter D. Kelley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00460-WDK)

Submitted: February 29, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney,

LeDora Knight, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-4996 Doc: 52 Filed: 03/12/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Cornelius Day appeals from his convictions for

conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, conspiracy to launder money,

and seven counts of money laundering. On appeal, he challenges the

admission of his prior conviction for possession with intent to

distribute cocaine. We affirm.

Day contends that he was denied the right to a fair trial

when the court admitted evidence of his prior conviction under Fed.

R. Evid. 404(b). Review of a district court’s determination of the

admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) is for abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th

Cir. 1997). Evidence of other crimes is not admissible to prove

bad character or criminal propensity. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Such

evidence is admissible, however, to prove “motive, opportunity,

intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of

mistake or accident.” Id.; see Queen, 132 F.3d at 994. Rule

404(b) is an inclusive rule, allowing evidence of other crimes or

acts except that which tends to prove only criminal disposition.

See Queen, 132 F.3d at 994-95.

Evidence of prior acts is admissible under Rule 404(b)

and Fed. R. Evid. 403 if the evidence is (1) relevant to an issue

other than the general character of the defendant, (2) necessary,

and (3) reliable, and if the probative value of the evidence is not

substantially outweighed by it prejudicial effect. Queen, 132 F.3d

Appeal: 06-4996 Doc: 52 Filed: 03/12/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

at 997. A limiting jury instruction explaining the purpose for

admitting evidence of prior acts and advance notice of the intent

to introduce evidence of prior acts provide additional protection

to defendants. See id.

The prior conviction for possession with intent to

distribute cocaine involved charges that Day and his wife were

stopped by police officers and cocaine was found in their car.

These charges are similar to one of the charges in the instant case

that Day and his wife transported (and caused to be transported)

drugs for distribution. See id. at 997 (“[T]he more similar the

prior act is (in terms of physical similarity or mental state) to

the act being proved, the more relevant it becomes.”). Thus, the

evidence was relevant to Day’s intent and the absence of a mistake.

In addition, the evidence was necessary to corroborate other

testimony that had been challenged on credibility grounds, and to

provide additional objective evidence that Day intended to join the

charged conspiracy with the intent to distribute cocaine.

Moreover, the admission of the conviction was not

excessively prejudicial because the conviction involved the same

type of drug and the conduct occurred in relatively the same time

period as the offenses charged in the indictment. See United

States v. Boyd, 53 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding there is

no unfair prejudice when the prior act is no more sensational or

disturbing than the evidence admitted directly supporting the

Appeal: 06-4996 Doc: 52 Filed: 03/12/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
*Moreover, it is clear that the jury listened to and abided by

the court’s instructions. Although Day’s wife’s conviction was

also admitted at trial, she was acquitted of all charges. 

- 4 -

crimes with which the defendant was charged). Further, the

Government gave advance notice of its intent to seek admission of

the conviction, and the district court conducted a balancing

analysis under Rule 403. After ruling that the evidence was

admissible, the court gave a limiting instruction both when the

evidence was admitted and at the close of evidence. Thus, any

danger of unfair prejudice to Day was minimized.* See Queen, 132

F.3d at 997. Because the court properly considered and applied the

appropriate evidentiary standards, we conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior

conviction.

Accordingly, we affirm Day’s convictions. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-4996 Doc: 52 Filed: 03/12/2008 Pg: 4 of 4