Opinion ID: 12447
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Shotgun

Text: Wright and Jackson appeal the admission of Officer Webster’s testimony that, during the course of one of the undercover drug deals where Jackson was present, a participant held a shotgun to Officer Webster’s head. Webster testified that Nathaniel Williams was holding a shotgun when Webster entered the residence and that Williams held the shotgun to Webster’s head during the transaction. The district court also allowed Webster to identify a noise on the undercover tape recording of the transaction as “racking” the shotgun. We review admissibility rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1334 (5th Cir. 1996). In this case, the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury, concluded that the evidence was not extraneous to the charge, and overruled Jackson’s Rule 404(b) objection. The district court acted within its discretion in determining that the use of the shotgun was not evidence extrinsic to the charge. The shotgun was used in connection with a drug sale, which involved Jackson and other charged co-conspirators who pleaded guilty before trial. The district court’s determination that the evidence was not extrinsic comports with the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis in United States v. Weeks: 24 Evidence of criminal activity other than the charged offense is not considered extrinsic within the proscription of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence if it is an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, United States v. Kloock, 652 F.2d 492, 494 (5th Cir. 1981), if it was inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, United States v. Killian, 639 F.2d 206, 211 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1021, 101 S. Ct. 3014, 69 L.Ed. 2d 394 (1982), or if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime of the trial, United States v. Wilson, 578 F.2d 67, 72-73 (5th Cir. 1978). 716 F.2d 830, 832 (11th Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Asibor, 109 F.3d 1023, 1034 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936, 942 (2d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). The use of the shotgun in this case arose out of the drug conspiracy, was inextricably intertwined with the specific drug deal, and was part of “the story of the crime.” See Weeks, 716 F.2d at 832. Under these circumstances, the district court’s determination that this evidence was not extraneous was not an abuse of discretion. Jackson also argues that the district court erred in failing to make Beechum findings on the record as required by United States v. Robinson, 700 F.2d 205, 213 (5th Cir. 1983). We disagree for two reasons. First, because the district court properly determined that the evidence was not extraneous, no Beechum findings were required. United States v. Maceo, 947 F.2d 1191, 1199 n.3 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 949, 112 S. Ct. 1510 (1992). Second, even if Beechum did apply, the district court was not required to conduct an on-the-record Beechum analysis because 25 Jackson failed to request it. United States v. Fox, 69 F.3d 15, 20 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, although the shotgun evidence is no doubt prejudicial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that any unfair prejudice did not “substantially outweigh” its probative value as required under Rule 403.