Opinion ID: 670324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jimenez' 1983 conviction

Text: 24 The trial court admitted into evidence Jimenez' 1983 felony conviction for serving as an accessory after the fact to bringing aliens into the United States. We review the admissibility of prior convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 725 F.2d 471, 477 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 837 (1984). 25 Under Rule 404(b), a party may not introduce evidence of past crimes to prove character in order to show action in conformity therewith; however, the Rule permits introduction of past act evidence to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Courts may admit evidence of prior bad acts to show intent, motive, or absence of mistake only when those acts are similar to the present charge and not too remote in time. United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1327 (9th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir.1993) (evidence must also prove a material element of the offense and have sufficient factual support). 26 Jimenez contends that her 1983 conviction as an accessory differs significantly from the present charge, and is too remote in time to be admissible. We disagree. 27 There exists sufficient similarity between the acts to support admissibility because in both offenses the defendant transported illegal aliens into or within the United States. See United States v. Eufracio-Torres, 890 F.2d 266, 272 (10th Cir.1989) (earlier conviction for illegal entry sufficiently similar to transport under Sec. 1324(a)(1)(B) to permit admissibility of prior conviction to infer knowledge), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1008 (1990); Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d at 1326 (evidence that in past defendant had previously been observed at residence used for harboring aliens admissible to show knowledge or reckless disregard in subsequent trial for transporting aliens). 3 28 As to remoteness, we have previously admitted convictions older than eight years to show knowledge, intent, or lack of mistake. United States v. Ross, 886 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.1989) (thirteen-year-old conviction admissible), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1083 (1990); United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 518 (9th Cir.1989) (ten-year-old conviction admissible), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 864, 878 (1990). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the eight-year-old conviction. 29 Jimenez correctly asserts that courts determining the admissibility of prior bad act evidence must also examine the evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 403. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d at 602. While the excerpts from the record provided to this court do not indicate that the district court specifically took up the Rule 403 question, our review of the record reveals that the defendant failed to show at trial (and on this appeal) that the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the earlier conviction's significant probative value. The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the evidence to come in at trial.