Opinion ID: 522285
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harmless Error Doctrine

Text: 21 Having concluded that is was error for the district court to admit evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), we reverse only if the error was not harmless. See Hodges, 770 F.2d at 1480 (citing United States v. Soulard, 730 F.2d 1292, 1296 (9th Cir.1984)); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). Errors, such as this one, which do not rise to constitutional dimension, are not harmless unless it is more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the evidence did not affect the jury's verdict. Hodges, 770 F.2d at 1480. 22 In its closing argument to the jury, the Government used a theory of motivation to explain the killing of the postal carrier: 23 The question is not really so much why he [Brown] did it; however, I thought it would be appropriate to give you my theory, my theory of motivation on how it happened. 24 .... [The postal carrier] died because the defendant had his personal agenda or objective to satisfy in killing her. He got some thrill on account of it. He got some sense of viciousness satisfied in him out of it.... 25 This theory of motivation heavily relied on the evidence of Brown's prior bad acts. In its rebuttal to the defense's closing argument, the Government mentioned and discussed each of Brown's prior bad acts four times. In its final remarks, the Government stated: 26 Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you, the evidence has shown that something got to the Defendant that day. That his rage and viciousness spilled out and it consumed [the postal carrier's] life. 27 I submit to you, that the Government has shown a motive in this case. We don't have a burden to do so. But the human mind, I think, naturally ... explores for a motivation in a situation like this. And I think we have shown it. 28 Same as in '79 [the recovery of property at gunpoint]. Same as in January of '86 [the shooting into Ms. Dukes' home]. That he was vicious and that he lashed out and that he took this woman's life. There was no accident and no mistake. 29 Despite the other evidence against Brown, the continued references to Brown's prior bad acts at the Government's closing arguments make it impossible for us to say it is more likely than not that they did not affect the jury's verdict. A reasonable juror unsure of Brown's specific intent to commit first degree murder might have elected to convict Brown of that offense based on the bad act evidence admitted and on the government's comments. We must therefore reverse the trial court's decision.