Opinion ID: 581055
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility as proof of intent or absence of mistake

Text: 8 Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to show propensity, but that it is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. This Court has held that prior bad acts are admissible if the evidence is relevant under the standards set by rule 404(b), necessary to the government's case, and reliable. United States v. Hadaway, 681 F.2d 214, 217 (4th Cir. 1982). The district court's ruling will only be disturbed upon a finding of abuse of discretion. United States v. Ramey, 791 F.2d 317, 323 (4th Cir. 1986). 9 Scalco contends that the evidence of his prior crimes and drug involvement did not fall into any of the rule 404(b) categories. However, in this case, as in United States v. King, 768 F.2d 586 (4th Cir. 1985), Scalco's prior drug involvement tended to show intent and lack of mistake. Someone unfamiliar with PCP might not have understood the significance of a jar of parsley which bore the odor of ether, whereas Scalco would surely realize that the parsley was laced with PCP due to his prior involvement with that drug. Further, Scalco's previous drug convictions and his involvement with PCP tend to show that he was not merely an innocent acquaintance of the others in the car, but rather that he knowingly possessed the PCP. 3 Under the reasoning of King, then, the evidence of Scalco's drug convictions and prior involvement with PCP was admissible to show intent and lack of mistake.