# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 10 32

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Zach ery Kin g Ed ward Co nn er,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Sio ux Fal ls

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 18
Fi le d: May 9, 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Zach ery Co nn er of ro bb ery un de r th e Hob bs Act, br an di sh in g

a fir earm du rin g an d in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce ( i.e.

, th e ro bb ery), an d un la wfu l

po ss es si on of a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on

. Se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 1 9 51

,92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i i), an d 92 2( g) (1 ). Ove r Co nn er’s ob jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t ad m it te d 1

i n to ev id en ce a vi de o an d fiv e ph ot og rap hs sh owi ng Co nn er weari ng a jack et an d

sh oe s si m il ar to th os e wor n by th e pe rp et rat or of th e ro bb ery. Co nn er ch al le ng es th e
ad m is si bi li ty of th is ev id en ce, an d he arg ue s se pa rat el y th at Hob bs Act ro bb ery is no t

a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r § 92 4( c). W e co nc lu de th at th ere was no rev ers ib le erro r,

an d t he refo re af

fir m

.

I.

On Dec em

be r 7, 20 16

, a m an wiel di ng a gu n rob be d a Cas ey ’s Gen eral St or e

in Yan kt on , So ut h Dak ot a. The st or e’s su rv ei ll an ce vi de o cap tu red th e in ci de nt

. The

m an was weari ng a bl ack sk i m as k an d su ng la ss es , so hi s face was hi dd en

. The

ro bb er al so do nn ed a bl ack jack et wit h re d a nd whi te tri m , a red ho od ed swea ts hi rt,

red sh oe s wi th on e whi te sh oe la ce an d o ne red sh oe la ce, an d l at ex gl ov es

.

A po li ce of

fic er fro m W ag ne r, So ut h Dak ot a, sa w an im ag e of th e ro bb er in an

on li ne ne ws art ic le

. The of fic er reco gn iz ed th e ro bb er’s jack et as si m il ar to on e th at

Co nn er was weari ng whe n he was arre st ed th ree week s earl ie r a n d b oo ke d at th e

co un ty jail

. The W ag ne r of fic er in fo rm ed th e Yan kt on po l i c e of th e po ss ib le

id en ti fic at io n, an d t he po li ce s ta rte d d is tri bu ti ng ph ot os of C on ne r to th e p ub li c.

The da y aft er th e ro bb ery, po li ce rece iv ed a ti p th at a m an m at ch in g Co nn er’s

de sc rip ti o n h a d le ft a co nv en ie nc e st or e as a pa ss en ge r in a red tru ck

. The po li ce
lo cat ed th e tru ck pa rk ed be hi nd a res id en ce a n d d i s c ov ered Co nn er walk in g on th e
si de walk in fro nt of th e ho us e. The res id en ce be lo ng ed to an acq ua in ta nc e of Co nn er.
The ho m eo wne r co ns en te d to a se arch of hi s res i d e n c e , an d po li ce fo un d a bl ack

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of So ut h Dak ot a.

-2

-jack et wit h red an d whi te tri m, a r e d ho od ed swe at sh irt

, a lo ad ed gu n, an d la te x

gl ov es

.

A gr an d jury

ch arg ed Co nn er wi th Hob bs Act rob be ry , br an di sh in g a fir earm
du rin g an d in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c), an d un la wfu l

po ss es si on of a fir earm as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on

. Co nn er m ov ed to di sm is s th e § 92 4( c) co un t on th e gr ou nd th at Hob bs Act ro bb ery is no t a “ cri m e o f vi ol en ce.”

The di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n.

C o n n e r al so m ov ed in li min e to ex cl ud e two vi de os of hi m at th e co un ty jai l

aft er hi s arre st on Nov em

be r 17

, 20 16

. One vi de o, de si gn at ed as Exh ib it 14

, sh owe d

Co nn er in th e lo bb y of th e jail

, ha nd cu ffed an d ta ki ng a br eat h te st

. The ot he r vi de o,

m ark ed as Exh ib it 8, sh owe d Co nn er walk in g th ro ug h a n en tryway wit h hi s ha nd s
be hi nd hi s b ack ; n o h an dc uf fs or o th er res tra in ts were v is ib le

.

The go ve rn m en t so ug ht to of fer th es e vi de os , as well as st il l ph ot og rap hs

dr awn fro m th e vi de os , to sh ow Co nn er “ weari ng a jack et an d sh oe s th at m at ch ed th e jack et an d sh oe s wor n by th e pe rs on th at co m m it te d th e ro bb e r y o n D e cem be r 7,

20 16 .” The en tryway vi de o sh owe d Co nn er, th ree week s be fo re th e ro bb ery, weari ng

a bl ack jack et wit h red an d whi te tri m an d red sh oe s wit h on e whi te sh oe la ce an d on e
red sh oe la ce. The su rv ei ll an ce vi de o fro m Cas ey ’s sh owe d th e ro bb er weari ng a
bl ack jack et wit h red an d whi te tri m an d red sh oe s with on e whi te sh oe la ce an d on e
red sh oe la ce.

Co nn er arg ue d t h a t t he ev id en ce sh ou ld be ex cl ud ed as im pr op er ch arac te r

ev id en ce un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) an d as un fai rly pr e ju d i c ia l un de r

R u l e 40 3. At a pr et ria l co nf eren ce, th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e lo bb y v i d e o ( Ex h i b i t 1 4) bu t ru le d ad m is si bl e th e en tryway vi de o (Exh ib it 8) an d th e st il l
ph ot og rap hs de r i v ed fro m th e vi de o, whi ch were m ark ed as Exh ib it s 9 th ro ug h 13

.

-3

-At tri al

, whe n th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to in tro du ce Exh ib it s 8- 13

, t h e d is tri ct co ur t

is su ed a li m it in g i ns tru ct io n t o t he jury:

The fol lo win g v id eo reco rd in g a nd ph ot og rap hi c ev id en ce, in th at y ou wil l se e Mr. Co nn er d u r i n g a n in te ract io n wit h th e W ag ne r Po li ce Dep art m en t th at to ok pl ace in Nov em be r of 20 16

. You m ay u s e th is

ev id en ce to he lp y ou de ci de whe th er Mr

. C o n n e r is th e pe rs on who

co m m it te d th e of

fen se as al le ge d in th e In di ct m en t. You s h o ul d no t

co nc lu de th at Mr. Co nn er is m or e or le ss li ke ly t o ha ve co m m it te d th e ch arg ed of

fen se s in th is cas e du e to a pr io r in te ract io n wit h th e W ag ne r Po li ce Dep art m en t.

The jury ul ti m at el y

co nv ic te d C on ne r on all th ree c ou nt s.

II.

Co nn er a r g u es on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by

ad m it ti ng th e vi de o an d s ti ll ph ot og rap hs un de r Ru le 40 4( b)

. Ru le 40 4( b) al lo ws a

co u r t t o a d mi t ev id en ce of a cri m e, wro ng , o r ot he r ba d act fo r pu rp os es ot he r th an

pr ov in g th at th e de fen da nt act ed in acco rd an ce with ba d cha ract er. In th is in st an ce,
ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad m it e v i d en ce of a pr io r cri m e, wro ng , o r ot he r
ba d act by Co nn er th at is go ve rn ed by Ru le 40 4( b)

. Und er Ru le 40 4( b)

, we co ns id er
whe th er ev id en ce of a pr io r ba d act was “ si m il ar in ki nd ” to t h e ch arg ed of fen se , Uni te d St at es v. Smi th

, 78 9 F.3 d 92 3, 92 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), bu t th ere was no ba si s fo r

th at an al y si s he re, be cau se th e ex hi bi ts in cl ud ed no ev id en ce th at Co nn er co m m it te d

an y pa rti cu la r ba d act

. Se e Uni te d St a te s v. W il li ams , 97 1 F.2 d 15 7, 15 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 92 )

. Rat he r, th e co ur t al lo wed ev id en ce th at Co nn er was se en on vi de o weari ng

cert ai n c lo th in g t hr ee wee ks be fo re t he rob be ry

.

The vi de o e v i d e n c e was rel ev an t to sh ow th at Co nn er do nn ed a jack et an d

sh oe s on Nov em

be r 17 th at m at ch ed th e jack et an d sh oe s w o r n b y th e ro bb er on

-4

-Decem

be r 7. The ev id en ce th us te nd ed to m ak e it m or e pr ob ab le th at Co nn er

co m m it te d th e ro bb ery th an if th ere was no ev id en ce th at he ha d pr ev io us ly wor n th e

a tt ire

. Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e ex hi bi ts were pr op erl y ad m it te d as r e l e v a n t

no n- ch arac te r ev id en ce un de r Ru le s 40 1 an d 40 2. Cf

. Man at t v. Uni on Pac

. R.R. Co

. , 12 2 F .3d 51 4, 5 17 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d t ha t Ex hi bi ts 8-1 3 wer e “ rel ev an t on th e is su e o f

id en ti ty, an d th e cl ot hi ng an d ap pa rel go di rect ly to th e is su e of id en ti ty.” W e ag ree

th at th e ev id en ce was rel ev an t to whe th er Co nn er was th e Cas ey ’s ro bb er. Bu t whi le

“ id en ti ty” is on e of th e pe rm is si bl e pu rp os es fo r whi ch ev id en ce of pr io r ba d act s m ay
be ad m it te d un de r R u le 40 4( b) (2 ), Co nn er’s at ti re is no t th e so rt of “ id en ti ty”

ev id en ce co nt em

pl at ed by th at ru le

. Ru le 40 4( b) pr ov id es fo r th e rece ip t of ev id en ce

of a de fen da nt ’s pr io r cri m es to pr ov e “ id en ti ty” in a si tu at io n “ whe re th e pa tt ern an d

ch arac te ris ti cs of th e cri m es are so un us ua l an d di st in ct iv e as to be li ke a si gn at ur e.”

Uni te d St at es v. Lewi s , 48 3 F.3 d 87 1, 87 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( i nt ern al qu ot at io n an d

br ack et s om it te d)

. The ev id en ce of Co nn er’s at ti re on Nov em be r 17 was no t ev id en ce

of a pr io r cri m e or wro ng of fere d to sh ow t ha t h e co m m it te d a “ si gn at ur e” crim e on
Decemb e r 7

. It was si m

pl y rel ev an t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce th at he co m m it te d th e

ro bb ery be cau se he was k no wn t o wea r cl ot hi ng li ke th at worn by the rob be r.

C on ne r al so as se rts th at th e ev id en ce sh ou ld ha ve be en ex cl ud ed un de r R u l e

40 3, bu t th e di st ric t cou rt reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of Exh ib it s

8- 13 was no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twe i g h ed by th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e. Co nn er

arg ue s th at th e im ag es of hi m walk in g th ro ug h an en tryway wit h hi s ha nd s be hi nd hi s
ba ck en co ur ag ed th e jury to b el ie ve he was gu il ty becau se of a pre vi ou s i nt erac ti on
wit h p ol ic e. An o ffi cer fro m th e W ag ne r Po li ce Dep art m en t, ho wev er, al read y ha d

te st ifi ed wit ho ut ob

jecti on th at sh e reco gn iz ed th e ro bb er’s jack et as si m il ar to th e on e

C o n n e r h ad be en weari ng du rin g “ co nt act ” wit h hi m whe n he “ was arre st ed .” Th e
di st ric t co ur t’s li m it in g in st r u c t i o n ack no wled ge d wha t th e jury al read y kn ew fro m

th e of fic er’s te st im on y

—n am el y , t ha t Co nn er ha d a pr ev io us “ in te ract io n” wit h th e

-5

-W ag ne r Po li ce Dep art m en t. The li m it in g in st ru ct io n was pr op erl y de si gn ed to av oi d

an y un fai r pr ejud ic e fro m th is ev id en ce, te ll in g juro rs th at th ey sh ou ld no t co nc lu de

th at Co nn er was m or e li ke ly to ha ve c o mm i t t ed th e ch arg ed of fen se s du e to hi s

pr ev io us in te ract io n wit h th e po li ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Fra nk li n , 25 0 F.3 d 65 3, 65 9
(8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). W e th us co nc lu de th at th ere was no ab us e of di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng

th e ev id en ce.

On Co nn er’s se co nd co nt en ti on , he co nc ed es th at ci rcu it pr eced en t ho ld s th at

Hob bs A c t ro bb ery is a “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” fo r pu rp os es of § 92 4( c). Se e Dia z v.

Uni te d St at es , 86 3 F.3d 78 1, 78 3- 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). The di st ric t cou rt th us di d no t

err in de nyin g Co nn er’s m ot io n to di sm is s th e ch arg e of br an di sh in g a fir earm du rin g

an d i n re la ti on to a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-