Opinion ID: 2982327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of 823 West Rich Street Evidence

Text: Smotherman next faults the district court for allowing evidence of the heroin distribution occurring at 823 West Rich Street, reiterating that he had nothing to do with that location. We find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461 F.3d 724, 741 (6th Cir. 2006). Again, the government needed to establish the existence of a drug-trafficking conspiracy, not just a buyer-seller relationship. It did this by presenting evidence of a distribution agreement between the heroin supplier at 823 West Rich Street and the downstream sellers at 401 Taylor Avenue—as noted above, Johnson’s frequent heroin and cash runs, delivering heroin from Price to Smotherman and returning with money. Moreover, Smotherman’s cousin, with whom he -4- Case No. 13-3645 United States v. Smotherman agreed to sell drugs, packaged heroin at both locations. (R. 259, Trial Tr. (Arnett Smotherman) at 171–73.) Thus, whether or not Smotherman knew of the activities at 823 West Rich Street, the evidence concerning the stash house was relevant to—and highly probative of—the conspiracy charge. See Fed. R. Evid. 401(a) (“Evidence is relevant if . . . it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”); Dortch v. Fowler, 588 F.3d 396, 400 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting Rule 401’s “extremely liberal” relevance standard); see also United States v. Schultz, 855 F.2d 1217, 1221 (6th Cir. 1988) (acknowledging the chainlike design of many drug conspiracies, and concluding that “[i]t is not necessary to prove that the defendant was aware of each act of his coconspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy”). Given his frequent dealings with the residents of 823 West Rich Street, we discern no risk of unfair prejudice to Smotherman from the admission of this evidence, let alone one substantially outweighing its probative value. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.