## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1338 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T I T OR I AN O. W EBB , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the No rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 1:07- CR-56- TS

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngman n, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 15, 2008

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 20, 2008

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chief Judg e, a nd C OFFEYa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . W hen the p oli ce a rr i ved w i th a w ar ra nt to sea rch K el l e Hartm an’ s ho use f ordrugs, th ey fou n d T i t o r i an W eb b in t h e d riv ew ay , d re ss ed in w orkou t togs. T he police f ou nd ex ercise gear in H artm an ’s b a s e men t, a l o ngwi t h i l l e g a l dr ugs i n pl a i n v i e w. Equi pm en t f o r pa ck ag i ngdr ug s was s ca tt er ed th r o ug ho utthe ho us e. Af te r the se di sc o ve r i es , W eb b was a r r es te d a nd ch ar g ed wi th dr ug o f f en se s. H ar tman pl ea ded g ui lty a nd2 N o. 08

- 1338
tes ti fi ed aga i nst W ebb, w h o w as convi cted by a j ury of po ss es si ngc o ca i ne , mar ij ua na , a nd e cs ta sywi th i nt en t to dist ribute them

. H e was se n te n ced to 12 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. A fterW eb b’ s l aw yersa i d i n an o pening sta tem ent that W ebb had nothi ng to do with H ar tm an’ s di str ibuti on o f dr ug s, a nd was a t he r ho us e o nl y b y c ha nce when th e pol i ce a rr i ved, the pros ecuto r i ntro du ced W ebb’ s 1 996 convi cti on fo r dist ributi ng co cai ne. The di str i ct j ud ge o ve r r ul ed ano bj ec ti o n un derF ed. R. Ev i d. 4 04( b), s ta ting th atthe c onv i ct i o n wo ul d s ho w W eb b’ s i nt en t an d the abse nce o fm i sta ke , t w o uses perm i ssibl e under that Rule. The j ud ge tol d the j ury that the e vid en ce had been adm i tte d fo r speci fi c purpose s. W ebb does not conte st the t er m s o fthe l i m i ti ng i nstr ucti on b ut does ar gue that the co nvi cti on s houl d not hav e be en adm i tte d f orany pu rpos e. I t i s har d to see how the 19 96 convi cti on s how s e ith er i ntent orabs ence ofm i sta ke. The cr i m e o fwh i ch W ebb w as convi cted

— posse ssi on o f drugs w i th i ntent to dist ribute them

— h as an int en t e lem en t, to be su re , bu t W eb b d id not ar gue that he posse ssed t h e drugs f orper sonaluse ra therthan f ordi str ibuti on. H e co ntended that he did not posse ss the dr ugs f ora ny p urpose . W ebb’ s co nvi cti on w oul d have be en useful onl y t o the e xtent that i t show ed thathe ha d contr olo verthe drugs ( w hi ch i s t o s a y , t h a t h e p o s s e s s e d t h e m)

—but the pro secuto r has no t ar g ue d tha t i t te nds t o s ho w W eb b’ s k no wl edg e o fthe house’ s co ntents, l et al one dom i ni on o vertho se conte n ts. A s f or“absence o fm i stake”: how does a co nvi cti on s howN o. 08

- 1338 3 th is exc eptv i a th e pr o hi bi te d i nfer en ce tha t so m eo ne who d i s t r ib u t e s d r u g s o n c e i s l i k e l y t o d o i ta g a i n ? The pr o se cut o r ’ s position, i n s ho r t, s ee m s to b e th ata dr ug co nv i ct i o n a l way s m ayb e us ed i n a nothe r d r ugpr o se cuti on, ev en ifthe cri m es have nothi ng el se i n com m on. That p os itio n w as rejec te d inU n i t ed S ta tes v. B easley , 80 9 F.2 d 12 73 (7t h C ir. 1 98 7). Se e a lso , e.g., U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m ps on , 479 F.3d 492 ( 7th Cir. 2007). W eb b d id n ot, ho w ev er , con te n d th at th e e vid e n c e is i r r el ev ant. Hi s ar g um en ts , b o thi n the di st r i ctc o ur t an d th is a p p ea l, h av e b ee n lim ite d to R u le 4 0 4 ( b ) its elf

— an d al l thatRule does i s s p ec ify one prohibi ted use ( the pr opensi ty i nfe re nce) w hi l e di scl ai m i ng any effect on o ther uses, such a s p ro vi ng know l edge o r i ntent. W hether parti cul ar ev i dence i s r el evanto n thos e s ubj ects i s a ques tio n o utsi de the sco pe ofRule 40 4( b)

. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 4 55 F.3d 800 , 810–1 2 (7th C ir. 2006) (conc urr i ngo pi ni o n). T o c o nc en tr at e o n Ru l e 40 4(b) , whenthe r ea l que st i o ns a r e r el ev an ce ( Rul e 40 2) a nd whe the r the evi dence has a pot enti al f orprej ud i ce di spro port i onate to i ts v al i d us e ( Rul e 40 3) , i s to mis di r ec t at te nt i o n. I t i s e a s y t o fi nd c a s e s ho l di ng t ha t a di s t r i c t j ud g e doe s not er r i n adm i ttin g p ri orco nvi cti ons to show int ent o r a b s e n c e o fmi s t a k e i n d r u g p r o s e c u t i o n s . O n e g o o d e x a mp le is U nited Sta tes v. H urn , 496 F. 3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 2007), w hi ch hel d that the d ist rict co urt did notabuse i ts discre ti on i n adm i tti ng a convi cti on under c i rcum st an ces v e r y mu c h l i k e th o s e o fWe b b ’ s p r o s e c u t i o n. H urn c olle c ts ot h er d ec isio n s to th e sam e effec t. Se e, e.g ., U nited State s v. C hav is , 429 F.3d 662 , 668 (7 th Cir. 2005).4 N o. 08

- 1338 Altho ug h s ev er alo fthe se o pi ni o ns sa y tha t a pr i o r c o nvi ct i o n s ho ws i nt en t o rabs ence o fmis ta k e, no ne ex pl ai ns why

— p er h ap s b ec au se in t h os e a p p ea ls, as in thi s one, the parti es ass um ed that the e vi dence w as re l evanta nd s o di d n o tp r e s e ntthe q ue s t i o n i n a n a dve rs ar ial m an n er for d ec isio n on ap p ea l. Give n H urn an d its p re d ec es so rs , i t ca n n ot be p lain error to ad m it t h e con viction in the absen ce of a re l evance o bj ec tio n. A nd we need not tack l e the te nsi on between B easley a nd S i mp s on , o n the o ne ha nd, a nd H u rn a nd Ch avis , o n the othe r, bec ause eve n the l i ghter ha rm le s s -error stan d ard w ou ld req uire us to affirm W eb b’ s co nv i ct i o n. Both H ar tm an and her house kee per tes tifie d that W ebb l i ved i n the house. The house kee per add ed th at the b ase men twa s l o c k e d, tha ts he c o ul d e nt e r o nl y i fHa r tm an or W e b b l e th e r i n t o c l e a n, a nd tha ts he r e g ul a r l y s aw W ebb hand l e co cai ne and m ar ij uana. A gl azi erte sti fi ed that W ebb w as prese nt o n both days when he i nstal l ed m i r r o r s i n the ho us e’ s ba se m en t. The g l az i er, lik e th e housek eeper, te sti fi ed that W ebb unlo cked the bas eme n td o o r t o a d mi th i m. W ebb h ad a k eyt o the ho us e when he was a r r es te d; he w as al so car ry i n g $3 , 000 i n sta cks separ ate d by r ubber bands. H i s ca r conta i ned plas ti c ba gs o f the ki nd o ften u se d for p ac ka gin g d ru gs , p lu s a larg e n u m b er of air freshen ers

— f ar to o m an y f oro ne car, wh i ch i m pli es that t h e y wer e u s e d t o ma s kth e s me l l o fma r ij u a n a . A h o me g y m ha d b ee n se t up i n the b as ement, wher e m o sto fthe dr ug s an d pa ck ag i ngm ateri al s wer e f o und. Anyo ne whoN o. 08

- 1338 5

wa n t e d t o u s e t h e we i g h t s wo u l d h a v e h a d t o mo v e s o me o fthe c o ca i ne a nd mar ij ua na t o g eta t th em; m arij ua na se eds a nd s te m s wer e f o und o n a t r ea dm i l l

. W eb b co nce ded i n a n i nt erview w i tha DEA ag en t th athe a nd H ar tm an w er e l ov er s. A lth ou gh h e d en ied livin g in H ar tm an ’s h ou se , th e c on c es sio n (p lu s t h e k ey an d h is p en ch an t for ex ercise) sev erely un d erm ined W ebb ’s ass er ti on that he did notposs ess any drugs. Give n th is e vi dence

— an d there w as m ore

— the f act that W ebb had a drug convi cti on on hi s r eco rd co uld not h av e a ffec te d t h e ju ry ’s v er d ict . Th e h ar m les s-e rro r ru le m eans that distri ct j ud ges , r atherthan cour ts ofappeal s, ar e th e p rin c ip al e n for c er s o f lim its on ot h e r -c rim e e vidence. W e t rustthatdi str i ct j ud ges wil l r evi ew ev i dence ofthi s k i nd care fu ll y t o ensure thati t r eal l y i s r el evant, an d s er ve s a l eg i ti m at e g o alr ather tha n l ea di ngt o the f orbi dd en pro pensi ty i nfe re nce. Th e j ud g men ti s a f fi r med

.

11- 20- 08