Opinion ID: 174539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Balancing potential prejudice to Wilson with the probative value of the evidence of the shooting

Text: As previously discussed, evidence that Wilson shot at Torres-Ortiz over a bad drug deal was probative of the critical issue disputed at trial, whether Wilson knew of, and actively participated in, Vigil's drug trafficking. And the probative value of this shooting evidence outweighed any potential prejudice to Wilson. Any such prejudice was minimized because the testimony about the shooting was very brief. And the full extent of that testimony was that, after Wilson shot at Torres-Ortiz, Torres-Ortiz ran away unharmed. Further, the prosecutor did not mention the shooting during her closing argument. (Defense counsel did make a fleeting reference to this evidence in his closing remarks.) Finally, and importantly, the district court limited the prejudicial impact of this evidence on Wilson's defense by instructing jurors to consider it only in deciding whether Wilson knew of, and actively participated in, Vigil's drug-trafficking operations. See Donnell, 596 F.3d at 921; Littlewind, 595 F.3d at 881. For these reasons, the probative value of the testimony that Wilson once shot at Torres-Ortiz outweighed any unduly prejudicial impact that this evidence might have had on Wilson's defense. In arguing to the contrary, Wilson relies on two cases that are inapposite. First, Wilson asserts that his case is similar to United States v. Falls, 117 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir.1997). There, the Government charged Lamont Falls with being the leader of a drug distribution operation in Iowa and of supplying that operation with large amounts of cocaine. See id. at 1076. As proof of those offenses, the Government presented the testimony of Trevor Woods, who was not connected in any way to the Iowa operation, but who testified that during this same time period, he bought ten kilograms of cocaine from Falls in California. See id. Woods also testified that Falls regularly carried a gun and that on one occasion Falls sold Woods a gun. Id. at 1077. This court held that the district court had abused its discretion in admitting Wood's testimony under Rule 404(b) because it went only to Falls' propensity to commit drug crimes similar to those charged in the Iowa prosecution. See id. This court further determined, however, that this error was harmless. See id. at 1077-78. Unlike in Falls, here the fact that Wilson knew that Torres-Ortiz was a drug dealer from other dealings between the two was relevant to the question of whether Wilson knew of, and intended to join and to further, Vigil's drug-trafficking operation. Wilson did that in part by introducing Vigil to Torres-Ortiz as another possible drug supplier for the conspiracy charged in this prosecution. Thus, in this case, unlike in Falls, there is a connection between Wilson's shooting at Torres-Ortiz over a bad drug deal and Wilson's participating in Vigil's operation. Moreover, the evidence challenged here was very brief and accompanied by a limiting instruction, unlike in Falls where the challenged testimony was lengthy and the court did not give any limiting instruction, see id. at 1077. That connection, between Wilson's shooting at Torres-Ortiz over a bad drug deal and Wilson's participating in Vigil's operation, also distinguishes this case from the second case on which Wilson relies, United States v. McDermott, 64 F.3d 1448 (10th Cir.1995). In McDermott, the United States charged McDermott with being engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise and with interstate travel in aid of unlawful activity. See id. at 1450. This court determined that the district court had erred in that case by admitting testimony that when, during an argument, an acquaintance called McDermott a pothead and a drug dealer, McDermott told her that if she ever told anyone that, she would be hurt or even killed because McDermott had connections with people bigger than himself. See id. at 1450-51, 1456. McDermott held that the district court erred in admitting that evidence because, whatever probative value the testimony had was substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. Id. at 1457. However, that error was not the basis upon which a new trial was ordered in that case. See id. at 1450, 1454. Again here, evidence that Wilson shot at Torres-Ortiz when he came to collect on a bad drug debt was probative of the critical issue disputed at trial. And here, unlike in McDermott, any potential prejudiced was minimized by the manner in which the Government presented this evidence and by the district court's limiting instruction. Thus, in our case, the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.