Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50766/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50766-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bart Ellis Shoupe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 12, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50766

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BART ELLIS SHOUPE,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-99-CR-12-7

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bart Ellis Shoupe appeals his jury-trial conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana between

1993 and 1996. He contends that the district court abused its

discretion by admitting evidence under FED. R. EVID. 404(b) of his

involvement in a marijuana-trafficking operation in 2002, while

he was a fugitive. Shoupe’s defense was that he lacked the

intent to join the charged conspiracy. 

 Case: 03-50766 Document: 0051240362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2004
03-50766

-2-

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting

the evidence of Shoupe’s subsequent conduct. See United States

v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 831 (5th Cir. 1995). The evidence was

admissible under FED. R. EVID. 404(b) because Shoupe asserted a

defense of a lack of intent, and the other-acts evidence was

admitted for the limited purpose of showing that Shoupe had the

intent to conspire to possess and distribute marijuana. See

United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1040 (5th Cir. 1996);

United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en

banc). The probative value of the contested evidence was

relevant to Shoupe’s intent and was not outweighed by the danger

of unfair prejudice, especially in light of the district court’s

instruction that the evidence could be considered only with

regard to Shoupe’s intent or state of mind. See Broussard, 80

F.3d at 1040. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-50766 Document: 0051240362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2004