2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-14-2009

USA v. Lane

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-3819

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Lane" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 818.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/818
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________

No. 07-3819

_________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 v.

STEVEN LANE,

Appellant. 

___________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

No. 04-cr-00697-2

(District Judge: The Honorable William H. Yohn) 

___________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 2, 2009

Before: McKEE, HARDIMAN, and GREENBERG Circuit Judges

(Filed August 14, 2009) 
2

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKee, Circuit Judge,

Steven Lane appeals his conviction for conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce

by robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. 

I. 

Inasmuch as we are writing primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we

need not recite the factual or procedural history. Lane argues that the district court erred in

permitting a government witness to testify about Lane’s involvement in a prior robbery for which

he had been neither charged nor convicted. He contends that this testimony was irrelevant and

that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, and that he is therefore entitled

to a new trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We disagree. 

We review the district court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Butch, 256 F.3d 171, 175 (3d Cir. 2001). Rule 404(b) states that while “[e]vidence of

other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show

conformity therewith,” such evidence may be used for other purposes. Indeed, such evidence

shall be admitted “if relevant for any other purpose than to show a mere propensity or

disposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime.” United States v. Long, 574 F.2d

761, 766 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 985 (1978). 

In order to be admissible under Rule 404(b), evidence must meet four requirements: (1) it

must be offered for a proper purpose; (2) it must be relevant; (3) its probative value must not be

substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial impact; and (4) the court must properly
3

instruct the jury about the proper use and relevance of the evidence. See Huddleston v. United

States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988). See also United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 460 (3d Cir.

2003). 

During argument on the motion to introduce this evidence the government explained that

the testimony about the prior robbery was necessary to establish the ongoing relationship of Lane

with his co-defendant, the government’s witness. The testimony explained why Lane and the codefendant trusted each other and were able to accomplish the robbery in question without

significant planning. The evidence was therefore relevant to establishing preparation and plan

which are appropriate uses of evidence of a defendant’s prior “bad acts” under Rule 404(b). 

Moreover, this testimony was the only way the government could establish the relationship

between Lane and the co-defendant, and that was certainly relevant to the government’s case. 

Accordingly, the district court correctly found that a “genuine need” for the evidence outweighed

any prejudicial effect. (App. 61-62). 

We have held in numerous cases that evidence of prior criminal activity is admissible

under Rule 404(b) to show the relationship between a witness and a defendant. See, e.g., United

States v. Butch, 256 F.3d 171 (3d Cir. 2001) (allowing witness in pharmaceutical theft case to

testify as to defendant’s prior participation in identical theft); see also United States v. Simmons,

679 F.2d 1042, 1050 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1134 (1983) (holding that evidence

may be introduced “to provide necessary background information, to show an ongoing

relationship between [the defendant and a co-conspirator], and to help the jury understand the coconspirator’s role in the scheme”). 

In addition, the district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury that
4

minimized the likelihood that the evidence would be considered for an improper purpose. See

United States v. Sriyuth, 98 F.3d 739, 748 (3d Cir. 1996). Our review is for plain error because

Lane did not object to this testimony at trial. United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245, 265 (3d Cir.

2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 821 (2002). Given the district court’s limiting instruction, and the

relevance of the evidence under Rule 404(b), we find no error at all in admitting this evidence, let

alone any “plain error.” The instruction was given both at the time of the testimony, and again

before the jury deliberated. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the jury did not

understand the instructions or were incapable of following them. 

Although Lane cites several cases to support his argument that the instructions were

insufficient to overcome the prejudicial effect of the testimony, all of the cases he cites involve

situations where there was either no proper purpose for the evidence, or the court simply failed to

give any limiting instruction at all. Here, “we believe this is a case where the jury could be

expected to compartmentalize the evidence and consider it for its proper purposes.” Sriyuth, 98

F.3d at 748. 

II.

For all of the above reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction.