Opinion ID: 6332844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pretrial Motion

Text: Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits the district court to exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. “In determining whether evidence should have been excluded under Rule 403, a reviewing court must give great deference to the trial judge who saw and heard the evidence.” United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 796 (8th Cir. 1980). -4- In his first point on appeal, Cavanaugh argues that the district court erred in allowing the government to elicit testimony from A.L. and H.L. regarding A.L.’s suicide attempt. On May 1, 2020, Cavanaugh filed a motion in limine which, in relevant part, urged the district court to prohibit testimony from A.L. and H.L. regarding A.L.’s suicide attempt. Cavanaugh’s primary argument was that the testimony lacked sufficient probative value to overcome its potential prejudicial effect on the jury as it determined whether A.L. was sexually assaulted. The district court disagreed, noting in its order that potential testimony bears on A.L.’s recall of the events and is relevant to whether she had the capacity to apprise the nature of Cavanaugh’s conduct and her ability to decline participation in that conduct. And due to the close temporal proximity of the suicide attempt, the testimony provides full context for the charged crimes. R. Doc. 101, at 3 (citations omitted). Cavanaugh argues that there was no need for testimony related to A.L.’s suicide attempt to provide the full context of what transpired. Cavanaugh contends that the evidence only provided minimal context as to the crimes charged, lacked meaningful probative value, and served only to confuse and mislead the jury resulting in unfair prejudice. Cavanaugh further contends that the district court failed to acknowledge obvious ways such testimony could inflame the jury against him. The government responds that A.L.’s overdose, coupled with the alcohol that Cavanaugh gave her, was relevant and probative because it may have “affected her ability to recall events that had transpired prior to the overdose.” Appellee’s Br. at 23. Specifically, it “may also have affected her ability to relay details to others—importantly, to the examining medical personnel and the investigating agent.” Id. Moreover, A.L.’s suicide attempt was particularly important for rebutting Cavanaugh’s testimony that he and A.L. had engaged in consensual sex. -5- The district court adequately addressed Cavanaugh’s concern in its order, noting that “the testimony is unlikely to be so provocative as to divert the jury’s attention from the central sexual abuse allegation.” R. Doc. 101, at 3. Given the close temporal and causal proximity of A.L.’s suicide attempt to Cavanaugh’s conduct, evidence of her subsequent behavior was probative and not unfairly prejudicial. See United States v. Fechner, 952 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir. 2020) (“Rule 403 prohibits evidence that is unfairly prejudicial, not any evidence detrimental to a defendant’s case.”). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about A.L.’s suicide attempt.