Opinion ID: 4557269
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the evidence tends to prove a material

Text: point (materiality); (2) the other act is not too remote in time (recency); (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant committed the other act (sufficiency); and (4) . . . the act is similar to the offense charged (similarity). UNITED STATES V. BERCKMANN 7 United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 688 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (parentheticals added). The burden is on the government to prove that the evidence satisfies these requirements. United States v. Martin, 796 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2015). Berckmann does not challenge the recency or sufficiency prongs—only materiality and similarity. Here, the materiality and similarity analyses are virtually identical, so we examine them together. Other acts of domestic violence involving the same victim are textbook examples of evidence admissible under Rule 404(b), and courts have permitted this evidence under a variety of theories. Some have explained that additional assaults are admissible as a “critical part of the story” that clarifies the motive behind the charged crimes. 2 Other courts have allowed this evidence to illustrate the “history of [the] relationship” between the defendant and victim, which speaks to a defendant’s intent. 3 These cases say essentially the same thing—prior (and subsequent) acts of violence towards the identical victim can shed light on the mindset of the defendant during the charged crime, such as whether there was a grudge between the two, a desire for payback of some sort, or that the defendant had the intent to exert control over this particular victim through violence. See, e.g., United States v. Lewis, 780 F.2d 1140, 1142 (4th Cir. 1986) 2 See, e.g., United States v. Covington, 565 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (11th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Farish, 535 F.3d 815, 820 (8th Cir. 2008) (prior domestic abuse evidence admissible to explain the defendant’s motive to commit arson against a friend of the defendant’s abused wife, who was sheltering the wife). 3 See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 860 F.3d 1133, 1142 (8th Cir. 2017) (prior assault convictions admissible to “help explain the history” between the victim and the defendant “from which [the defendant’s] intent to commit violence upon [the victim] is derived”). 8 UNITED STATES V. BERCKMANN (prior assault involving same victim admissible under Rule 404(b) as evidence of “[r]ising animosity” that “could easily provide the motive for an assault”). 4 Here, the district court ruled that evidence of these other attacks was admissible as non-propensity evidence. The evidence helped show that Berckmann was not joking around or simply trying to frighten his wife, but rather intended to assault and strangle her. Under our case law, that ruling was not an abuse of discretion. In United States v. Hinton, the defendant was charged with assault with the intent to commit murder. 31 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1994). The government introduced evidence of prior assaults to demonstrate that the defendant intended to stab the victim, and not merely scare her. Id. at 822. We held that “evidence of a prior incident involving the same victim has ‘probative value in disproving claims that the defendant lacked intent’” and upheld the admission of the previous attacks. Id. (quoting United States v. Lewis, 837 F.2d 415, 419 (9th Cir. 1988)). 4 Courts also have permitted other acts of violence as evidence to explain a victim’s reaction—or apparent non-reaction—after being assaulted. See, e.g., United States v. Tsinnijinnie, 91 F.3d 1285, 1289 (9th Cir. 1996) (evidence of prior physical abuse admissible under Rule 404(b) to demonstrate how a victim “could be afraid enough to submit to such actions quietly”); United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508–09 (4th Cir. 2016) (domestic violence admissible under Rule 404(b) to explain the defendant’s “control and domination” over his victim, and to explain why the victim remained with the defendant); United States v. Plumman, 409 F.3d 919, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (prior assaults admissible under Rule 404(b) because the “physical assault evidence . . . provide[d] a reason why [the victim] did not contact law enforcement”). Because the government did not pursue this theory at trial or on appeal, we do not analyze it here. UNITED STATES V. BERCKMANN 9 Hinton controls the outcome here. Both counts required the government to prove that Berckmann intended to harm his wife. Count 1, assault with a dangerous weapon, mandated proof of an intent to cause bodily harm. See 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3); 9th Cir. Model Crim. Jury Instr. 8.7. And while strangulation is a general intent crime, Count 2 also charged attempted strangulation, and attempt crimes always require specific intent. See, e.g., United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188, 1190 (9th. Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“‘[A]ttempt’ is a term that at common law requires proof that the defendant had the specific intent to commit the underlying crime[.]”). Other courts agree. See, e.g., United States v. Shillingstad, 632 F.3d 1031, 1035 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that prior assaults were admissible to prove intent in assault with a dangerous weapon prosecution, and to disprove accident theory); United States v. RodriguezBerrios, 573 F.3d 55, 64 (1st Cir. 2009) (“The evidence of appellant’s intentional physical harm of the victim in the past had ‘special relevance’ because it was probative of his intent to cause her harm at the time he seized her car.” (citation omitted)). Berckmann contested intent at trial, making proof of his intent from these other incidents fair game. Berckmann relies on United States v. Bettencourt and United States v. San Martin to argue that the New Jersey and Waikiki incidents were inadmissible propensity evidence. Yet neither of these cases involved attacks on the same victim, which is what distinguishes this case and which is often a defining feature of domestic violence cases. Specifically, in Bettencourt, the defendant was charged with interfering with a Secret Service Agent in the performance of his official duties, and the trial court admitted evidence that he was arrested for interfering with different local officials at a different time. 614 F.2d 214, 215 10 UNITED STATES V. BERCKMANN (9th Cir. 1980). Our court held that the admission was erroneous, as the other incident shed very little light on the defendant’s mindset towards the particular Secret Service Agent and smacked of classic propensity: there was “no rational connection between the two occurrences,” and the testimony was only “slightly probative of Bettencourt’s intent at the time of the alleged crime.” Id. at 217. The same was true in San Martin, where six FBI agents attempted to arrest the defendant pursuant to a warrant. 505 F.2d 918, 920 (5th Cir. 1974). In an effort to evade arrest, the defendant turned and struck one of the FBI agents on the shoulder “with his arm or elbow.” Id. The defendant was later charged with one count of willful and forcible assault. Id. At trial, where the sole issue was whether the defendant “intended to strike” the FBI agent, the government presented evidence of the defendant’s three prior misdemeanor convictions—one for resisting arrest, one for opposing a public officer, and one for assault and battery. Id. at 921. Not only did these prior convictions involve entirely different victims, but they occurred nearly ten years before the charged assault. Id. at 922. Again, these prior convictions did not help the jury determine the defendant’s mindset towards the FBI agent, other than to suggest that he had the “disposition or character” to attack law enforcement officers. Id. at 923. Simply put, Bettencourt and San Martin are examples of classic character evidence. The other acts were not introduced to help the jury understand the relationship between the defendant and a particular victim, but rather to characterize the defendant as someone who has a propensity to be violent towards law enforcement. As we made clear in Hinton, neither of these decisions is particularly relevant to cases like this one involving attacks UNITED STATES V. BERCKMANN 11 on the same victim. See, e.g., Hinton, 31 F.3d at 822 (holding that the concerns outlined in Bettencourt and San Martin were “inapplicable where . . . the charged and prior conduct were part of a pattern of abuse involving the same victim and . . . similar modus operandi”). Nor was there error under Rule 403, which permits district courts to exclude relevant evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” United States v. Ramos-Atondo, 732 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Bailey, 696 F.3d at 799. As discussed above, the evidence of Berckmann’s attacks on his wife in New Jersey and Waikiki were quite probative of his intent at Hosmer Campground, and probative evidence is necessarily prejudicial to some degree. To the extent that this evidence could have gone too far if not cabined, the district court on three separate occasions instructed the jury that these acts were not charged crimes and could only be used for the “limited purpose of deciding whether the defendant had the state of mind, knowledge, or intent to commit the crimes charged in the indictment.” Considering the particularly relevant nature of the incidents between Berckmann and his wife, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence over a Rule 403 objection. See, e.g., United States v. Thornhill, 940 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2019) (highlighting the importance of limiting instructions, and recognizing that “even where evidence is highly prejudicial, it is not necessarily unfairly prejudicial” (citation omitted)). Because the district court properly admitted the evidence of the New Jersey and Waikiki attacks, we affirm. AFFIRMED.