Opinion ID: 582735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Should the Trial Court Have Suppressed Evidence and

Text: 71 Testimony Concerning Appellant's Subsequent 72 Mississippi Convictions? 73 Appellant maintains that the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding appellant's subsequent possession of a controlled substance in Mississippi. He asserts that the effect of such evidence was to prejudice and to inflame the jury against him. We once again review the district court's admission of evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. 74 Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows for the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for the purpose of establishing motive, intent, preparation, plan, or identity. Rule 404(b) does not specifically exclude acts subsequent to the incident or incidents giving rise to the charges in the indictment. United States v. Hogue, 827 F.2d 660, 663 (10th Cir.1987). In fact, we have allowed evidence of subsequent crimes where it is similar to the crime charged or possesses some signature quality. United States v. Gutierrez, 696 F.2d 753, 755 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813, cert. denied, 461 U.S. 910, 103 S.Ct. 1885, 76 L.Ed.2d 814 (1983). In this case, the government sought to introduce testimony regarding appellant's possession of cocaine in Mississippi. The government argued that such evidence was significant because it shows not only was the defendant in possession of a large quantity of cocaine within [the] last two months after he escaped from this jurisdiction but that he was doing so in association and in conjunction with a fellow family member of a much younger age than himself ... in the same manner that he enlisted Mr. Alvarez. R.Vol. III at 162-63. The government asserted that the Mississippi cocaine possession was relevant to show the defendant's plan, opportunity, knowledge and intent in regard to the current charges. Id. at 163. The district court agreed and held that the evidence is relevant ... and the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value. Id. at 164. We cannot say that that ruling was an abuse of discretion. Moreover, we note that the government was careful to avoid any reference to appellant's conviction on the Mississippi charges. They offered testimony only as to appellant's possession and modus operandi in Mississippi; it was the defense which revealed to the jury the facts of appellant's conviction. We therefore affirm the trial court's evidentiary ruling on this matter. 75