Opinion ID: 683881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 404(b) Testimony

Text: 8 Groll argues that Beulow's testimony regarding Smothers was proper, stating that he was a manipulative individual who had a motive, plan and history of using women to obtain financial gain. Appellant's Brief at 9. The district court refused to admit the testimony, stating that money is not an issue in this case.... [T]hat's not admissible under 404(b). Trial Tr. 202-03. Rule 404(b) states: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove a character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). See, e.g., United States v. Levy, 955 F.2d 1098, 1102 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 102 (1992); United States v. Sullivan, 911 F.2d 2, 6 (7th Cir.1990). Groll submits that Beulow's testimony would support her entrapment defense by showing Smothers' motive, intent, plan and preparation for entrapping Groll. The defense of entrapment requires proof of government inducement of the crime and the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 484 U.S. 58, 63 (1988); see Jacobson v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 1540 (1992); United States v. Gootee, No. 93-2088, slip op. at 3 (7th Cir. Sept. 2, 1994). 9 By introducing the testimony of Beulow, Groll attempted to establish that because Smothers' allegedly used women in the past for financial gain he therefore coerced Groll into committing the crimes charged. There is not a sufficient nexus between using a woman, with whom Smothers had a personal relationship, for financial gain, and coercing a woman he did not know well into illegal acts of buying and selling drugs. There is no evidence Beulow engaged in the distribution of drugs or did so at Smothers' request, or that Smothers, while working with law enforcement authorities, entrapped Beulow in the past resulting in her arrest. Beulow's testimony did not go to the issue in the case: whether Groll was entrapped by the government to commit a crime she did not have the propensity to commit. It seems that Groll's purpose in introducing Beulow's testimony was to discredit Smothers, a purpose prohibited by Rule 404(b). 2