Opinion ID: 2520411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Error in Giving Limiting Instruction

Text: [¶15] A considerable volume of W.R.E. 404(b) [2] evidence was admitted against Hall during his trial. Defense counsel asked that a limiting instruction be given after the testimony of each witness who testified about 404(b) evidence. The limiting instruction offered by Hall for the district court's consideration was this: The preceding evidence of Mr. Hall [sic] was admitted for the limited purpose of proving knowledge, motive, intent and preparation. The evidence cannot be considered by you as direct evidence that the defendant committed the crimes charged or that he acted in conformity with his character. [¶16] During the trial, the district court gave the following instruction (with some minor variations that are not of any consequence) on five occasions: Ladies and gentlemen, from time to time the Court will allow the introduction of evidence that you might consider for one purpose but not another, and this is one of those times. And the Court will direct you at this time that the evidence produced here, particularly the items that were introduced in evidence by Agent Farmer, are admitted for the limited purpose of proving knowledge, motive, intent, or preparation with respect to the charge at issue. This evidence may not be considered by you as direct evidence that the Defendant committed the crimes charged or that he acted in conformity with his character here. Hall did not object to the giving of the instruction or its form on any occasion. The thrust of Hall's contention is that the instruction suggests that his character here was that of a drug dealer and was, therefore, prejudicial to him. [¶17] The standard of review to be applied in a circumstance such as this is well settled. A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on the general principles of the law applicable to the case at hand. The trial court is afforded wide latitude in instructing the jury. So long as the instructions correctly state the law and the entire charge covers the issue, reversible error will not be found. Only where an appellant demonstrates that the instructions given confused or misled the jury with respect to the applicable principles of the law will prejudice be found. Giles v. State, 2004 WY 101, ¶14, 96 P.3d 1027, ¶14 (Wyo. 2004). [¶18] The instruction given may not be an ideal instruction; however, we conclude that Hall was not prejudiced by its use here, and it does not require reversal in these circumstances. W.R.E. 404(b) evidence continues to be a significant point of discussion in a great number of criminal appeals. In many of those cases, defense counsel have eschewed requesting limiting instructions, and there may be many sound reasons for doing so. W.Cr.P.J.I. 6.03 (1996) provides this very minimal guidance with respect to this question: 6.03 EVIDENCE ADMITTED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE The Court has admitted [the testimony of witness ________________ that _______________________] [Exhibit ____] for the limited purpose of establishing _____________. You must not consider this evidence for any purpose except the limited purpose for which it was admitted. [¶19] In addition, we will set out below some examples of instructions that are used in other jurisdictions: PROOF OF OTHER CRIME  LIMITED ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE Evidence has been admitted tending to prove that the defendant committed (crimes) (a crime) other than the present crime charged. This evidence may be considered solely for the purpose of proving the defendant's (motive) (opportunity) (intent) (preparation) (plan) (knowledge) (identity) (absence of mistake or accident). Pattern Instructions for Kansas, Criminal 3d, § 52.06 (2004). Proof Of Other Offenses Or Conduct [1] Evidence has been received that the defendant(s) [(has) (have)] been involved in [(an offense) (offenses) (conduct)] other than [(that) (those)] charged in the [(indictment) (information) (complaint)]. [2] This evidence has been received on the issue[s] of the [(defendant's) (defendants')] [(identification) (presence) (intent) (motive) (design) (knowledge) (_________)] and may be considered by you only for that limited purpose. [3] It is for you to determine [whether the defendant[s] [(was) (were) involved in [(that) (those) [offenses) (offenses) (conduct)] and, if so, what weight should be given to this evidence on the issue[s] of ____________. 1 Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, IPI Criminal, § 3.14 (4th ed. 2000). DEFENDANT'S PRIOR SIMILAR ACTS (Where Introduced to Prove an Issue Other Than Identity (Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)) You [are about to hear] [have heard] a certain category of evidence called [other acts] [similar acts] evidence. Here, that evidence is that the defendant (describe evidence the jury is about to hear or has heard). You may not use this [other acts] [similar acts] evidence to decide whether the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crime charged in the indictment. In order to consider [other acts] [similar acts] evidence at all, you must first unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the rest of the evidence introduced, that the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crime charged in the indictment. If you make that finding, then you may consider the [other acts] [similar acts] evidence to decide (describe purpose under 404(b) for which evidence has been admitted.)1 [Other acts] [Similar acts] evidence must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence; that is, you must find that the evidence is more likely true than not true. This is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find that this evidence is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, you should give it the weight and value you believe it is entitled to receive. If you find that it is not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then you shall disregard such evidence.3 [Remember, even if you find that the defendant may have committed [a] similar [act] [acts] in the past, this is not evidence that [he] [she] may have committed such an act in this case. You may not convict a person simply because you believe [he] [she] committed similar acts in the past. The defendant is on trial only for the crime[s] charged, and you may consider the evidence of prior acts only on the issue of (state proper purpose under 404(b), e.g., intent, knowledge, motive.)]2 Notes on Use 1. Use care in framing the language to be used in specifying the purpose for which the evidence can be used. See United States v. Mothershed, 859 F.2d 585, 588-89 (8th Cir. 1988) (court should specify which component of Rule 404(b) the prior similar act evidence is relevant to and explain the relationship between the prior acts and proof of that proper component). 2. This paragraph should be given only upon request of the defendant. This portion of the instruction explains that prior similar act evidence is not admissible to prove propensity to commit crime, and defendant may want the jury so instructed. On the other hand, this portion of the instruction repeats reference to the prior act[s]. The trade-off between explanation and repetition should be made by the defendant in the first instance. 3. See generally, 1 L. Sand, J. Siffert, W. Loughlin & S. Reiss, Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal, § 5.10 (2000); United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835, 846 (8th Cir. 2002). Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit, Instruction No. 2.08 (2003). Similar Acts Evidence (Rule 404(b), FRE) During the course of the trial, as you know from the instructions I gave you then, you heard evidence of acts of the Defendant which may be similar to those charged in the indictment, but which were committed on other occasions. You must not consider any of this evidence in deciding if Defendant committed the acts charged in the indictment. However, you may consider this evidence for other, very limited, purposes. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt from other evidence in this case that the Defendant did commit the acts charged in the indictment, then you may consider evidence of the similar acts allegedly committed on other occasions to determine [whether the Defendant had the state of mind or intent necessary to commit the crime charged in the indictment] or [whether the Defendant acted according to a plan or in preparation for commission of a crime] or [whether the Defendant committed the acts for which the Defendant is on trial by accident or mistake]. Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases), Prepared by the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit, Special Instruction No. 4 (2003). [¶20] We hold that the district court's limiting instruction was not erroneous per se, that the jury was not misled or confused by the instruction, and that Hall was not prejudiced by its use in these circumstances. However, we do not recommend the instruction for use in future cases such as the one at hand.