Opinion ID: 68968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevance of Prior Misconduct

Text: Owen also objected to the admission of his prior counterfeiting conviction. This court reviews evidentiary rulings on a heightened abuse of discretion basis.5 However, even an abuse of discretion may not merit reversal if the error was harmless.6 The evidence of the conviction was admitted under F ED R. OF E VID. 404(b) as relevant to Owen’s intent to produce counterfeit money and knowledge of how 1 United States v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 391 (5th Cir. 2007). 2 United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). 3 United States v. Scott, 159 F.3d 916, 920-21 (5th Cir. 1998). 4 When held up to the light, the Lincoln watermark and strip from the five dollar bill are visible. However, these minor and hidden flaws are not sufficient to remove the bills from the statute’s definition 5 U.S. v. Franklin, 561 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2009). 6 Id. 3 No. 09-10071 to do so. We find no abuse of discretion here. Intent was put at issue by the plea of not guilty as it was an element of the crime. We also do not find that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the probative value was not outweighed by substantial prejudice to the defendant.7