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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 4- 13 87

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

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.

Esad Bek ric

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 15
Fil ed : M ay

11 , 20 15 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

A jury co nv ic te d Es a d Bek ric of Po ss es si on wit h In te nt to Dis tri bu te Fi fty

Kil og ram s or Mo re of Mar iju an a, 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a). Bek ric ap pe al s, arg ui ng th edi st r i c t co ur t im pr op erl y ad m it te d ev id en ce of a pr io r arre st th at di d no t res ul t in a 1

pr os ecu ti on an d im

pr op erl y ex cl ud ed as he ars ay cert ai n t es ti m on y

th at sh ou ld ha ve
be en al lo wed

. Bec au se ev id en ce of th e pr io r arre st te nd ed to pr ov e kn owl ed ge , i n t en t, pl an ni ng , an d mod us op er an di

, an d be cau se th e ex cl ud ed te st im on y wa s
he ars ay , we affi rm

.

I.

In 20 12

, of

fic ers in Tex as st op pe d Bek ric whi le he was dr iv in g a se m i tra ct or

p u l l i n g a tra il er. The tra il er, no t own ed by Bek ric

, was di sc ov ered to ha ve a f a l s e
wall co nc eal in g 1,9 70 po un ds of m ari juan a cu st om -wrap pe d in bu nd le s to fit sp eci fic

vo id s be hi nd th e wal l. Offi cers arre st ed Bek ric , bu t p ro se cu to rs de cl in ed to pu rs ue
ch arg es

.

In 20 13

, whi le dr iv in g hi s own se m i tra ct or pu ll in g hi s own tra il er in Mi ss ou ri,

Bek ric ex it ed a hi gh way up on se ei ng si gn s in di cat in g h e w as ap pr oa ch in g a dr ug
ch eck po in t. Afte r he le ft th e hi gh way , of fic ers st o pp ed hi m fo r a tra ffi c vi ol at io n.
Bek ric cl ai m ed to ha ve le ft th e hi gh way du e to di ffi cu lt ie s wit h a refr ig erat io n syste m

on hi s tra il er. He al so cl ai m ed to ha ve do cu m en ta ti on of cert ai n rep ai rs

. The of fic er

co ul d de te rm in e fro m co nd it io ns on th e sc en e—a fu nc ti on al refr ig erat io n syste m an d

do cu m en ts th at di d no t su pp or t Bek ric 's as se rti on s— th at Bek ric was no t t el li ng th e

tru th

. Dur in g th e tra ffi c st o p , a d r u g d o g al ert ed to Bek ric 's tra il er. Offi cers th en

se arch ed th e tra il er an d di sc ov ered 19 8 po un ds of m ari juan a cu st om

- w r a p p e d in

pa ck ag es to fit sp eci fic vo id s b eh in d a fal se wall

.

At tri al fo ll owi ng th e 20 13 arre st

, th e go ve rn m en t in tro du ced te st im on y fro m

an of fic er in vo lv ed in th e 20 1 2 arre st

. Bek ric ob jecte d, bu t th e co ur t al lo wed th e

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-te st im on y as ev id en ce te nd in g t o pr ov e Bek ric 's kn owl ed ge , in te nt

, pl an ni ng , an d

mod us op er an di co nc ern i ng fal se wall s in se m i tra il ers an d bu nd le s wrap pe d to fit

sp eci fic vo id s. The di st ric t co ur t pr ov id ed a d et ai le d l im it in g i ns tru ct io n re ga rd in g

th e sc op e o f th e p erm is si bl e u se of t hi s ev id en ce.

Als o at tri al

, Bek ric at te m pt ed to el ic it fro m an of

fic er i n v o l v e d in th e 20 13

arre st a de sc rip ti on of a di ffer en t, no n- te st i f yin g of fic er's 20 13 ou t-o f-co ur t

qu es ti on in g of Be kr ic

. Bek ric so ug ht to el ic it te st im on y th at th e no n- te st ifyin g of fic er

ha d ask ed hi m to co nd uc t a co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry an d th at Bek ric ha d ag reed to do so

. The g o v e r nm en t ob

jecte d on he ars ay gr ou nd s, an d th e di st ric t co ur t ex cl ud ed th e

te st im on y

. Late r in th e tri al

, Bek ric hi m se lf tes ti fie d with ou t go ve rn m en t ob jecti on

th at th e no n- te st ifyin g of

fic er as ke d hi m to co nd uc t a co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry , th at Bek ric

ag reed to do so , bu t t ha t n o s uc h d el iv ery act ua ll y to ok pl ace.

On ap pe al

, Bek ric arg ue s it was erro r to ad m it ev id en ce of th e 20 12 arre st an d

ev en ts su rro un di ng th a t a rres t be cau se pr os ecu to rs at th at ti m e ha d el ect ed no t to

pu rs ue ch arg es

. Bek ric al so arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it t e d e r ro r by ex cl ud in g

th e Mi ss ou ri of

fic er's te st im on y to de sc rib e a di ffer en t of fic er's 20 13 qu es ti on in g of

Bek ric an d re qu es t fo r Bek ric 's a ss is ta nc e wit h a co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry

.

II.

"Th e di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n in de t e r mi n i n g whe th er to ad m it or

ex cl ud e ev id en ce, an d we rev ers e su ch ru li ng s on ly fo r a cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l ab us e

of th at di sc ret io n." Uni te d St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 11 0 F.3 d 13 20

, 13 24 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ).

The erro ne ou s ad m is si on or ex cl us io n of ev id en ce is pr e ju d i ci al whe re it ha s "a

su bs t a n t i a l in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t." McDo well ex re. Jo ne s v. Bl an ke ns hi p, 75 9

F.3 d 84 7, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. And whe re th e

ev id en ce of gu i l t o th erwi se is ov erwh el m in g, an al le ge dl y erro ne ou s ev id en ti ary

ru li ng is se ld om li ke ly to ha ve a su bs ta nt ia l in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t. See Uni te d

-3

-St at es v. Ca rro ll , 20 7 F .3d 46 5, 4 72 (8t h Cir. 2 00 0) ("In li gh t o f th is ov erwh el m in g

ev id en ce

. . . we co nc lu de th at th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce of hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on ha d

on ly a sli gh t i m

pa ct on th e tr ia l, an d t hu s t he erro r was ha rm le ss .").

"Fe de ral Ru le of Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ) . . . 'gen eral ly pro hi bi ts th e in tro du ct io n o f

ev id en ce of ex tri ns ic act s th at m ig ht ad ve rs el y refl ect on th e act or 's ch arac te r, un le ss

th at ev id en ce be ars up on a rel ev an t is su e in th e cas e su ch as m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, or

kn owl ed ge .'" Ro bi ns on , 11 0 F.3 d at 13 24 (q uo ti ng Hud dl es to n v. Uni te d St at es , 48 5

U.S. 68 1, 68 5 (1 98 8) ). Fo r ev id en ce of pr io r act s to be ad m is si bl e fo r th e pu rp os e of

pr ov in g in te nt

, kn owl ed ge , pl an ni ng , or mod us op er an di

, th e act s m

us t be si m il ar in

na tu re, cl os e in ti m e, an d pr ov en by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. Id

. In ad di ti on , th e p ot en ti al for un fai r pr ejud ic e m us t n ot ou twei gh th e p ro ba ti ve va lu e. Id

.

The te st im on y ad dr es si ng Be kr ic ' s 2012 ar re st de sc rib ed co nd uc t th at was cl os e

in ti m e, hi gh ly si m il ar, a n d e x tre m el y pr ob at iv e as to th e kn owl ed ge or pl an ni ng

ne ces sa ry in th e us e of fal se pa ne ls an d th e pa ck ag in g of m ari juan a to fit in to sp eci fic

v o i ds

. Arg um en ts to th e co nt rary la ck m eri t. Bek ric arg ue s th e ev id en ce was n o t

es ta b li sh ed by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce an d ris ke d un du e pr ejud ic e th at

ou twei gh ed th e pr ob at iv e va lu e. He co up le s hi s pr ejud ic e arg um en t wit h a cl ai m th at

th e pr os ecu to r, in cl os i n g a r g u m en ts

, sp eci fic al ly as ke d th e jury to us e th e Ru le

40 4( b) ev id en ce fo r an im pr op er p ur

po se

.

Reg ard in g th e pr oo f of Bek ric 's pr io r co nd uc t an d arre st

, Bek ric arg ue s th at

b ecau se he was ne it he r in di ct ed no r tri ed

, th e pr os ecu to rs in 20 12 m us t ha v e

co nc lu de d pr ob ab le cau se was la c k i n g

. B e kr ic arg ue s th e la ck of an in di ct m en t

pr ecl ud es fu tu re de ci si on m ak ers fro m fin din g by a pr ep ondera nc e of th e ev id en ce th at

th e pr io r co nd uc t to ok pl ace. Bek ric 's arg um en t m is se s th e m ark

. Th e t e s t i mo ny

a d mi tt ed at tri al to de sc rib e Bek ric 's pr io r arre st su ffi ced to es ta bl is h by a

pr ep on de ran ce of t h e e v i d e n c e th at Bek ric dr ov e a tru ck in 20 12 fo un d to co nt ai n
si m il arl y co nc eal ed an d wrap pe d pa ck ag es of mar iju an a. A pr io r ex erci se of

-4

-pr os ecu to ria l di sc ret io n in Bek ric 's fav or do es no t li m it a fu tu re co ur t's ab il it y to he ar

ev id en ce an d d raw co nc lu si on s. 2

Reg ard in g Bek ric 's cl ai ms o f un fai r pr ejud ic e rel at ed to th e Ru le 40 4( b)

ev id en ce, Bek ric ig no res th e di st ric t co ur t's li m it in g in st ru ct io n. He al so at te m pt s to

la be l as un fai r a pr os ecu to r's st at em en t in ferr in g he kn ew of th e dr ug s in 20 12 an d

th eref or e is m or e li ke ly to ha ve kn own of th e dr ug s in 20 13

. Su ch a st at em en t is no t

u n f a i rly pr ejud ic ia l; it sp eak s di rect ly to th e pe rm is si bl e pu rp os e fo r whi ch t h e

ev id en ce was ad m it te d.

To th e ex te nt Bek ric 's arg um en t fo cu se s sp eci fic al ly on th e pr os ecu to r's wor d

choi ce, Bek ric ap pe ars to pr es en t a hybri d pr ose cu tor ia l- m isc ondu ct /e vid en tia ry -e rr or

th eo ry

. He no te s th at th e pr os ecu to r act u a l l y u se d th e co ll oq ui al is m "fo ol m e on ce
sh am e on y ou , fo ol m e twi ce sh am e on m e." Thi s st at em en t, pr es en te d wit h rh et or ic al

fla ir an d su gg es ti ng Bek ric affi rm at iv el y to ok st ep s t o " f o o l" au th or it ie s in 20 12

,

co ul d be vi ewed as pr e

ju d i c i al in so m e se tt in gs

. Here, ho wev er, it was co ns is te nt

wit h th e pe rm is si bl e us e of th e te st im on y

. Fu rth er, ev en if w e w e r e to fin d erro r,

th ere si m pl y was no pr ejud ic e. The ev id en ce es ta bl is hi ng Bek ric 's gu il t fo r th e 20 13

of fen se was ov erwh el m in g: he own ed th e tra i l er wit h th e fal se wall

, ex it ed th e

hi gh way su sp ic io us ly, an d l ie d t o o ffi cers at t he sce ne

.

B ek ric 's arg um en t ap pe ars to m is co ns tru e th e na tu re of pr os ecu to r i a l 2

di sc ret io n. The reco rd in th e pr es en t cas e do es no t di sc lo se why th e go ve rn m en t el ect ed no t to pu rs ue ch arg es ag ai ns t Bek ric in 20 12

. The de ci si on m ak ers in vo lv ed
in th at cas e di d no t ne ces sa ril y do ub t th ei r ab il it y to pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le

cau se . They m ay

ha ve co nc lu de d th at th ey co ul d no t pr ov e Bek ric 's gu il t be y on d a

r e a s on ab le do ub t, or th ey si m pl y m ay ha ve ha d ot he r pr io rit ie s or in su ffi ci e n t

r e s o u rces to in ve st in Bek ric 's pr os ecu ti on

. The ab se nc e of ch arg es do es no t mak e th e of fic er te st im on y as to on e-year-o ld ev en ts in su ffi ci en t to pr o ve Bek ric 's pr io r

co nd uc t b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.

-5

-Reg ard in g th e he ars ay is su e, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ex cl ud ed

th e te st im on y as "an ou t of cou rt s ta te m en t o ffer ed in ev id en ce to pro ve th e tru th of

th e m at te r a s s ert ed ." Uni te d St at es v. Grav es , 75 6 F.3 d 60 2, 60 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

Bek ric ne ve rth el es s arg ue s th e e x c l ud ed te st im on y sh ou ld ha ve be en ad m it te d to

ex pl ai n th e co ur se of th e in ve st ig at io n. See, e.g ., Unit ed Sta te s v . Davi s, 15 4 F.3 d

77 2, 77 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) ("An ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en t is

. . . no t he ars ay if it is of fere d,

no t fo r th e t r u t h o f t he m at te r as se rte d, bu t in st ead to ex pl ai n th e reas on s fo r or

pr op rie ty of a po li ce in ve st ig at io n." ). Bek ric 's arg um en t reg ard in g th e co ur se of th e

in ve st ig at io n m ak es li tt le se ns e as th e bu lk of th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t hi m was ob ta in ed

at th e tra ffi c st op

. In an y ev en t, Bek ric hi m se lf la te r te st ifi ed as to th e co nt en ts of th e

sa m e ou t-o f-co ur t co nv ers at io n. Thi s fact

, co up le d wit h th e ov erwh el m in g na tu re of

th e ev id en ce in th is cas e, sh ow th at an y erro r rel at ed to th e he ars ay is su e was wit ho ut

pr ejud ic e.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-6

-