Opinion ID: 3019556
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e., the defendants’ mental state.

Text: Rule 704(b) states, No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone. In addition to an expert’s actual testimony, this court held in United States v. Watson, 260 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2001), that “Rule 704(b) may [also] be violated [by a] prosecutor’s question [when it] is plainly designed to elicit the expert's testimony about the mental state of the defendant.” Id. at 309 (citations omitted). Many of the statements alleged by Appellants to be reversible plain error explicitly referred to items in evidence as being “consistent with” drug distribution. Such testimony is not prohibited by Rule 704(b). United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2005). However, two of Gaul’s statements did not include the words “consistent with.” First, Gaul stated, “In my opinion, the narcotics and all the paraphernalia in reference to this investigation shows that the purpose for these are for distribution to sell,” App. at 429. Second, Gaul stated, “[W]hen I form an opinion I take in the factors of the totality 13 of the circumstances and [rubber bands next to drug paraphernalia and drugs are] just one more [of the factors] that form[ my] opinion that the drugs were possessed with the purpose for distribution,” App. at 446-47. Gaul’s choice of words does not necessarily suggest that he was opining on Appellants’ intent. His statements could equally suggest merely that an array of drugs and paraphernalia such as that found in the present case is consistent with drug distribution. As such, any error in allowing the statement was not “plain,” such that the District Court should have noticed the putative Rule 704(b) problem absent defense counsel’s objection. Similarly, the prosecutor’s questions were not plainly designed to elicit testimony about Appellants’ mental state. See Watson, 260 F.3d at 309. Moreover, we conclude that there was no violation of Appellants’ substantial rights because the absence of Gaul’s statements would not have led to a different trial outcome.