Opinion ID: 653600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Prior Digging

Text: 10 The trial court admitted the testimony of the hikers who had confronted Defendant digging at the ruin in 1988 under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Defendant argues that the government was not specific as to the exception within 404(b) relied upon and that the district court took a shotgun approach in admitting the evidence. We disagree. 11 The district court decided to admit the evidence both under 404(b) and the impeachment purpose that you have described, on the assumption that you are going to have testimony to the effect that he denied knowledge of this site, his presence there. R. 8. This statement certainly convinces us that the district court allowed the evidence to specifically counter Defendant's anticipated claim of no knowledge concerning the site. Later the judge indicated that the evidence had bearing on other factors listed in Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), R. 8-9, but this does not detract from the specificity of the earlier determination. 12 Defendant points out that the hikers' testimony was offered and admitted for impeachment purposes as well. Because he did not testify at trial, Defendant now argues that the testimony of the hikers could not possibly be used to impeach him. However, as was made clear to the court before trial, the evidence would contradict the statements that he [Defendant] made as part of an interview that he had with Special Agent Smith. R. 7. Defendant's statement was introduced through the testimony of Agent Smith, R. 73, 75, and no objections were raised; indeed, Defendant's statement was clearly admissible. See United States v. Clemons, 676 F.2d 122, 123 (5th Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 488 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870 (1978)); United States v. Barletta, 652 F.2d 218, 219 (1st Cir.1981). The testimony of the hikers contradicted Defendant's assertion that he was unfamiliar with the area where the ruins were located and was admissible for that purpose as well. 13 Finally, based on the record before us, we are unable to determine whether any limiting instructions were requested as to the testimony of the hikers. If not, we would rely on Fed.R.Evid. 105, which establishes that testimony admissible for one purpose shall be allowed and a limiting instruction issued if requested. If the Defendant fails to request a limiting instruction, the testimony is admitted for the one proper purpose so long as its probative value outweighs the prejudice to the defendant. Consequently, our holding may rest alternatively on either independent purpose cited by the judge. 14 AFFIRMED.