Opinion ID: 661736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Davis' Prior Drug Sales to Beadnell

Text: 18 The district court found the evidence of Davis' 30 to 40 prior crack sales to Beadnell admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) 1 on the issues of intent to distribute, knowledge and absence of mistake, and further found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect under Fed.R.Evid. 403. 2 At Davis' request, the district court gave a limiting instruction to the jury, and Davis does not challenge that instruction on appeal. 19 Davis neither denies that the prior sales to Beadnell occurred, nor challenges the district court's conclusion that the evidence of the prior sales was relevant to intent to distribute, an element of the offense with which he was charged. Davis candidly states that his trial strategy was to attempt to show that he possessed the crack cocaine for personal use. In similar settings, this court has affirmed the admission of evidence of other drug transactions. United States v. Gessa, 971 F.2d 1257, 1261-62 (6th Cir.1992) (en banc ) (evidence of prior trips to the Bahamas to obtain cocaine probative of defendant's ability and opportunity to participate in an importation scheme); United States v. Robison, 904 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 946, 111 S.Ct. 360, 112 L.Ed.2d 323 (1990) (evidence of prior sales by defendant occurring five months before alleged conspiracy began admissible to counter defendant's claim that he was only a user of drugs); United States v. Rodriguez, 882 F.2d 1059, 1064-65 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1144, 107 L.Ed.2d 1048 (1990) (evidence of undercover officers' purchase of cocaine from person who obtained drugs from defendant admissible to show defendant's intent to distribute cocaine nine days later). As in the cited cases, we agree that the evidence was relevant to a permissible Rule 404(b) issue, intent, and find no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that the challenged evidence was more probative than prejudicial, especially in light of the limiting instruction given to the jury. 20 Davis' principal contention is that the prior sales to Beadnell were not sufficiently similar to the offense with which he was charged to establish his predisposition to commit the offense, and that admission of the evidence was therefore error. Davis relies on United States v. Blankenship, 775 F.2d 735 (6th Cir.1985), where the court addressed the extent to which the government may use evidence of other crimes or acts to establish predisposition on the part of the defendant who admits the acts charged in the indictment, but relies on the defense of entrapment. Davis' argument fails due to his erroneous contention that the prior sales to Beadnell did not resemble the factual circumstances of the offense with which he was charged. Moreover, Blankenship has no applicability to the case before this court, where the defense of entrapment was not asserted and Davis' predisposition to commit the offense was therefore not an issue. 21 The district court's admission of the challenged evidence was not error.