FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14238 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 05- 00293- C R - 1- C B - B - 003 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A D R I A N K E N Y O N S P E A R S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 15, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A dr i a n K e ny on S pe a r s appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons f orpos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm by2

a c on vi ct ed fe l on , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1), ar gu i ng thatthe di stri ct c our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i ta dm i tt e d e vi de nc e of f a c t s r e l a t e d t o a1998 r o b b e ry d u r in g w h ic h h e a d m itte d th a t h e p o s s e s s e d ap e lle t g u n . W e rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ru l i n g s o n ad m i ssi o n o f ev i d en ce fo r an ab u se of di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d 1273, 1280 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( not i ng tha tpr ope r l y - pr e s e rve d e vi de nt i a ry c ha l l e nge s a r e r e vi e w e d f orabus e of d is c r e tio n ) . “A n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n a r is e s w h e n th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n r e s ts up on a c l ea rl y e rr on eous fi nd i ng of fa ct , an erra ntconcl usi on of l aw , or an i m pr ope rappl i c a t i on of l a w t o f a c t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d 1189, 1202 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 103 prov i des thatan

“ [e ] rr or m ayno tbe predi ca t ed up on a rul i ng w hi ch adm i t s or e xcl ud es evi dence un l es s asubst ant i al ri gh tof a party i s a ff ec t ed. ” F ed. R . E vi d. 10 3(a) . “ T he bu rden of de m ons tr a t i ng tha ts ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e a f f e c t e d r e s t s w i th the pa r ty a s s e r t i ng e rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m e r on, 907 F . 2d 1051, 1059 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . T he ve r di c ts houl d s t a nd w he r e the r e i s ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e of gui l ta nd the e rr or di d noti nf

l ue nc e the j ury orha d as l i ghte f f e c t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a l ol __ F . 3d __, 2 0 0 7 W L 2 8 9 6 5 0 a t * 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . F e d e r a l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 4 0 4 , “is aru le o f in c lu s io n , a n d [ ] a c c o r d in g ly [R ul e] 40 4(b) evi dence, l i ke other r el evantevi dence, shou l d n otbe excl ud ed w henFe deral Rule of Evidence403 provides that, “[a]lthough re lev a nt, evidencemay

be excluded 1 if its probative valueis substantially outweighed by

the dang er of

unfair prejudice[.]” 3 i ti s c entra l t o the prosecut i on ’ s c as e. ” J erni gan, 34 1 F . 3d . at12 80 (i nt ernal c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e ru le s ta te s : E vi de nc e of

othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s nota dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove th e c h a r a c te ro f

ap e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o rm ity there w i th. Itm ay , ho w ever , be adm i ss i bl e f or other purpo se s, such as proo f of m ot i ve, op po rtun i ty, i nt ent , prepara t i on , pl an, kn ow l edge, id e n tity , o rab s e n c e o f

m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t[ .] F e d .R .E v id . 4 0 4 ( b ) . T o be a dm i s s i bl e , ( 1) R ul e 404( b) e vi de nc e m us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue o th e rth a n th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c h a r a c te r ; ( 2 ) th e p r io ra c t m u s t b e p r o v e d s u f f ic ie n tly to pe rm i taj ury de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe de f e nda ntc om m i tt e d the a c t ; a nd ( 3) the e vi de nc e ’ s pr oba t i ve va l ue c a nnotbe s ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by i t s undue pr e j udi c e , a nd i tm us ts a t i s f y R ul e 403. J e rni ga n, 341 F . 3d a t1280. W e ha ve

1 e lab o r a te d o n th e th ir d p r o n g a n d s ta te d th a t the prob at i ve val ue of the evi dence m ustno tbe s u b s ta n tia lly ou tw ei gh ed b y u n f a irp r e ju d ic e . . . . [ T ]h is d e te rm in a tio n lie s w ith in th e so u n d d i scret i o n o f th e d i stri ctj u d g e an d cal l s fo r a co m m o n sen se as se ss m entof al l the ci rc um st ance s s urroun di ng the extri nsi c off ense , in c lu d in g p r o s e c u to r ia l n e e d , o v e r a ll s im ila r ity b e tw e e n th e e x tr in s ic actan d th e ch arg ed o ffen se, as w el l as t em p o ral rem o t en ess. I d. a t1282 ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . T he s tr onge rthe gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e r e ga r di ng i nt e ntorknow l e dge , the l e s s pr oba t i ve4

e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e c onc e rni ng i nt e ntorknow l e dge i s . B a ke r , 432 F . 3d a t1205 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .

“ [ W ] e ha ve ‘ ge ne r a l l y he l d tha ti f the e xtr i ns i c a c tr e qui r e s the s a m e i nt e nt as the charged offe nses and i f these ac t s a re prox i m at e i n t i m e t o the charged offe nses , then the extri nsi c a cti s hi gh l y probat i ve. ’ ” I d. at12 05 (quo t i ng U ni t ed S ta te s v . C h u r c h , 9 5 5 F .2 d 6 8 8 , 7 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ) . F ur the r , “ [ a ] s i m i l a r i ty be tw e e n the othe ra c ta nd the c ha r ge d of f e ns e w i l l m a ke the other off ense hi gh l y probat i ve w i th regar d t o a defendant ’ s i nt enti n the charged offe nse. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R am i re z, 42 6 F . 3d 13 44 , 13 54 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). In p a r tic u la r , th e p o s s e s s io n o f ac o n c e a le d f

ir e a rm in ap r io rin s ta n c e is r e le v a n t to th e c h a r g e o f

p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm d u r in g th e c o m m is s io n o f ad ru g o f

f e n s e . U n ite d S ta te s v . G o m e z , 9 2 7 F .2 d 1 5 3 0 , 1 5 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . T he c r i m e of

be i ng af

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm doe s notr e qui r e a ny s p e c if ic in te n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . J o n e s , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 4 1 7 , 1 4 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . H ow ever , un der A l abam a l aw , fi rs tdegree r ob beryi s aspec i fi c i nt entcr i m e that r e qui r e s pr oof

tha tthe de f

e nda ntus e d f

or c e w i th the i nt e ntt o ove r c om e the v i ct i m ’ s p h ysi cal resi st an ce o r co m p el acq u i escen ce t o th e t ak i n g o f h i s p ro p erty, w hi l e the defendantw as arm ed w i th a deadl y w eapo n. A l a. C od e § 13 A -8-41(a).5

B ec ause S pear s pl ed no tgu i l ty, he pl ac ed ati ss ue w hether he knew , or w as i n rec kl es s di sr egar d o f w hether, there w as a f i re arm i n C herry M ob l ey ’ s c arw hen he bo rr ow ed i t . T hu s, the fi rs tpron g w as m etbecause the evi dence of the 19 98 ac t m a d e it m o r e lik e ly th a t h e h a d th e in te n t to a n d k n o w le d g e to p o s s e s s ad e a d ly w e apon a nd he di d nota c tbe c a us e of m i s t a ke ora c c i de nt . T he s e c ond pr ong of the t e s tw a s m e tw he n a n of f i c e rw ho pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the i nve s t i ga t i on of the 1998 r o b b e ry te s tif

ie d th a t S p e a r s a d m itte d to p o s s e s s in g ap e lle t g u n d u r in g th e r o b b e ry . W hi l e i ti s unc l e a rw he the rS pe a r s ’ s c onduc ti n the 1998 r obbe ry ha s pr oba t i ve v a lu e w ith r e g a r d to th e in s ta n t c o n d u c t, a n d f u r th e r , w h e th e rits p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t a nt i a l l y outw e i ghe d by unf a i rpr e j udi c e , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on m us tnot be re vers ed because the evi dence agai nstS pear s w as ov erw hel m i ng . T he j ury h e a r d e v id e n c e th a t S p e a r s w a s in th e p o s s e s s io n o f ac lip m a tc h in g th e f

ir e a rm . F u rth er , h e h ad ad m itted to a p ro b atio n o ff icerth at h e to o k p o ss es sio n o f M o b ley’s fi re arm i n o rdert o h ave i teval uat ed. F i nal l y, M ob l eyt es t i fi ed thatS pear s knew the gun w a s i n the c a rw he n he borr ow e d i t . T hus , i n l i ghtof thi s s i gni f

i c a nt e v id e n c e o f

g u ilt, S p e a r s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e rr o ra f f e c te d h is s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.