Opinion ID: 6330205
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motive or Intent

Text: Even if the embezzlement evidence were not intrinsic, Rule 404(b) would not bar its admission because relevant evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” is admissible for nonpropensity purposes, such as proving intent or knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1)–(2); United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689, 693–94 (6th Cir. 2012). The district court may admit such evidence under Rule 404(b) if it determines that: (1) there is sufficient evidence the act occurred; (2) the act is admissible for a proper purpose; and (3) the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. United States v. Hardy, 643 F.3d 143, 150 (6th Cir. 2011).5 Here, the embezzlement evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b). First, there was sufficient evidence that Hofstetter was fired from the Hollywood clinic for embezzlement and that the Florida partners believed she was embezzling funds again in Tennessee. Two of Hofstetter’s co-conspirators testified at length about her embezzlement, and Hofstetter did not dispute that she embezzled clinic funds. Second, the embezzlement evidence was offered for two non-propensity purposes: to support the charge that Hofstetter intended to conspire with the Florida partners, and to show that Hofstetter knew the clinics were being operated illegally. Both are permissible purposes under Rule 404(b). Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). Third, the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. For all these reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision to admit the embezzlement evidence. 5Our precedent reflects an intra-circuit split about the appropriate standard of review when reviewing evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b). Compare Clay, 667 F.3d at 694 (using de novo review because determining “whether the evidence was admitted for a proper 404(b) purpose . . . is a question of law”), with United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928, 936 (6th Cir. 2003) (reviewing for abuse of discretion). Because Hofstetter’s claim fails under the less deferential de novo review, we need nod decide which standard of review should apply to Rule 404(b) challenges. Nos. 20-6245/6426/6427/6428 United States v. Hofstetter, et al. Page 27