Opinion ID: 213502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ware’s First and Fourth Claims

Text: In his first claim, Ware argues a leasing agent’s testimony about a shooting at Ware’s co-defendant’s former residence was inadmissible hearsay, irrelevant to 8 the prosecution of Ware, and prejudicial as showing the bad character of Ware. In his fourth claim, Ware contends that a police officer’s testimony regarding Ware’s arrest on unrelated outstanding warrants was inadmissible because it served only to show his bad character, which is inadmissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Under Rule 403, relevant evidence “may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 403. However, “Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy, which should be used only sparingly, and the balance should be struck in favor of admissibility. Thus, in reviewing issues under Rule 403, we look at the evidence in a light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 n.8 (11th Cir. 2007) (alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted). First, the leasing agent’s testimony was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—it was offered to explain the sequence of events that led to Ware and his co-defendant living together. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1288 (11th Cir. 2009). And the testimony was not irrelevant to the prosecution of Ware—it was relevant to explain why Ware’s co-defendant left his previous apartment and how Ware 9 ended up living with him. And any possible prejudice from this testimony was minimized by the government’s repeated explanation at trial that Ware had nothing to do with the shooting. While we may have excluded this testimony if we were in the trial judge’s position, we cannot say, on plain error review, that the district court plainly erred by admitting this evidence. It was also not error under Rule 404(b) for the district court to admit the officer’s testimony. Extrinsic evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a defendant’s character in order to show action in conformity therewith. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). But the officer’s testimony was not admitted to show that Ware had a criminal disposition and would act in conformity therewith. Instead, it was relevant to explain why the officer arrested Ware. See United States v. US Infrastructure, Inc., 576 F.3d 1195, 1210 (11th Cir. 2009); cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1918 (2010) (“Rule 404(b) does not apply when the other act evidence is linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime and concerns the context, motive or setup of the crime; or forms an integral part of the crime; or is necessary to complete the story of the crime.”). Without this testimony, the jury would be left wondering why Ware was arrested as he was walking from the direction of his apartment. And it is clear the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the 10 government explained that the warrants were for unpaid traffic tickets. Consequently, no error, much less plain error occurred, and Ware fails on his first and his fourth evidentiary claims.