Opinion ID: 688501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence Concerning 1985

Text: 4 The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Butterbaugh's fraudulent conduct in 1985 under Rule 404(b). 1 The cashed checks and Johnson's testimony were sufficient to prove the prior fraudulent activity; because the conduct occurred in the year preceding the charged offense, it was not too remote in time; the prior conduct was essentially identical to that with which Butterbaugh was charged; and the evidence was probative of willfulness, an essential element of the offense of subscribing to a false tax return. See, e.g., United States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir.1987) (finding evidence of other misconduct in filing of tax returns highly probative of willfulness). 5 The evidence also satisfied Rule 403. It was highly probative of willfulness, see id., and the court's limiting instruction to the jury reduced the risk of unfair prejudice, see United States v. Houser, 929 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir.1991).