Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01351/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01351-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis Eugene Cockerham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1351

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Dennis Eugene Cockerham, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 22, 2005

Filed: August 8, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Dennis Eugene Cockerham was convicted of one count of being a felon in

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and sentenced to a term

of 70 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. For

reversal, Cockerham argues that the district court erred in admitting his 1995 and

1997 convictions into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937357
1

Cockerham had two prior convictions for firearms possession contrary to Iowa

law. Iowa Code § 724.26 (2004).

2

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

-2-

I. Background

On July 14, 2003, police officers conducted a parole search at a trailer house

shared by Dennis Cockerham; his girlfriend, Tammy Blakey; and her three children.

Cockerham was not present for the search, but Blakey and her children were present.

The authorities searched the home and found a black bag located in the bathroom

adjacent to Cockerham’s bedroom. The bag contained a loaded .357 caliber revolver

and .357 ammunition, along with men’s clothes. When asked, Blakey told the police

that the firearm belonged to Cockerham. 

Nine days later, Cockerham was located in Iowa and arrested for absconding

from parole. The Parole Board revoked Cockerham’s parole, and Cockerham was

charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.1

Prior to trial, the government filed a notice of intent to offer past-acts evidence

pursuant to 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. At trial, the district court2

permitted the government to enter the evidence of Cockerham’s two prior felon-inpossession convictions, and issued a limiting instruction to the jury. The jury

returned a guilty verdict, and Cockerham was sentenced to 70 months in prison

followed by three years of supervised release. Cockerham timely appeals.

Appellate Case: 05-1351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937357
-3-

II. Discussion

We review the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence for abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835, 847 (8th Cir. 2002). Evidence of prior bad

acts is not admissible “solely to prove the defendant’s criminal disposition,” United

States v. Shoffner, 71 F.3d 1429, 1432 (8th Cir. 1995), but is admissible to show

“proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or

absence of mistake or accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Such evidence is admissible

if “(1) it is relevant to a material issue; (2) it is similar in kind and not overly remote

in time to the crime charged; (3) it is supported by sufficient evidence; and (4) its

potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value.” Frazier, 280

F.3d at 847 (quoting United States v. Hardy, 224 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2000)). 

Cockerham asserts that his past convictions are not relevant and are unduly

prejudicial. Our court has held that a defendant’s assertions that he was “present but

did not know of the presence of illegal [activity]” puts that defendant’s knowledge

and intent at issue. United States v. Strong, 2005 WL 1719850, at *2 (8th Cir.

July 26, 2005) (quoting United States v. Tomberlin, 130 F.3d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir.

2005)) (alteration in Strong). Further, we have agreed with other circuits that a past

firearms conviction may be used to establish knowledge and intent for purposes of

the present conviction. Strong, 2005 WL 1719850, at *2. This forecloses

Cockerham’s argument that the past convictions are not relevant to the present

offense. 

With regard to the claim of undue prejudice, our court assigns great weight to

the district court’s evaluation of evidentiary prejudice and probative value, and we

will normally defer to its judgment. United States v. Franklin, 250 F.3d 653, 659 (8th

Cir. 2001). Moreover, a proper limiting instruction serves as a protection against

unfair prejudice. Id.

Appellate Case: 05-1351 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937357
-4-

In determining whether or not to admit evidence of Cockerham’s past

convictions, the district court reviewed the prior convictions in light of the four-factor

test adopted by our circuit. Each of the factors was addressed by the district court,

and counsel for both parties were allowed to make arguments regarding each factor.

Cockerham submitted all of his arguments regarding prejudicial effects. The court

decided that the probative value of those convictions in helping to prove

Cockerham’s knowledge and lack of mistake outweighed the potential prejudice

resulting from admitting them into evidence. In recognition of this potential

prejudice, the court issued an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury. Because

Cockerham’s knowledge was at issue in the trial and an appropriate limiting

instruction was given to the jury, we find no abuse of discretion.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons we have stated, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 05-1351 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2005 Entry ID: 1937357