Opinion ID: 8045
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Gang Membership

Text: Brown argues that the district court erred by admitting testimony by Officers Medlicott and Myers that Brown was a gang member and a drug dealer. Brown contends that this evidence was irrelevant to the charge against him and that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. A district court's decision to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) is reviewed under a heightened abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Carrillo, 981 F.2d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1993). Rule 404(b) states in relevant part that `[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, 6 opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.' Id. Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) is governed by application of the two-part test set out in United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920 (1979). Carrillo, 981 F.2d at 774. First, it must be determined that the extrinsic offense evidence is relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character. Second, the evidence must possess probative value that is not substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice and must meet the other requirements of [Fed. R. Evid.] 403. Id. (internal quotations, citations, and footnote omitted). Moreover, even if error is shown, it is subjected to a harmless error analysis. United States v. Jimenez Lopez, 873 F.2d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Capote-Capote, 946 F.2d 1100, 1105 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 942 (1992). An error is harmless if the reviewing court is sure, after viewing the entire record, that the error did not influence the jury or had a very slight effect on its verdict. United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117, 123 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2260 (1995). Harmless error analysis also includes inquiry into whether a curative instruction was given and whether the properly admitted evidence is overwhelming. United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1116 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2180 (1994). Assuming that an error occurred here, any error in the admission of the challenged testimony was harmless. Brown was 7 charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, which requires proof that (1) Brown had a previous felony conviction, (2) he knowingly possessed the firearm, and (3) the firearm had traveled in or affected interstate commerce. See United States v. Wright, 24 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1994). The parties stipulated to Brown's felon status at the time of the offense and that the firearm had moved in interstate commerce. With regard to Brown's knowing possession of the firearm, Officer Medlicott testified at trial that after he stopped Brown's vehicle, Brown got out of the vehicle and stated, I wasn't trying to hide anything, but there's a pistol underneath the front seat. Officer Elizabeth Leach corroborated Officer Medlicott's testimony that Brown said that he had a gun underneath the seat. The officers then searched Brown's vehicle and retrieved a firearm from beneath the driver's front seat. Special Agent Jose Viegra testified that Brown stated that the weapon belonged to him, that he bought it in 1989, and that he carried it for self-protection. The other evidence against Brown is overwhelming. There is ample evidence that he was a felon in knowing possession of the firearm. Further, the district court instructed the jury that Brown's alleged gang affiliation was not to be considered in the determination of Brown's guilt or innocence on the firearm charge. See id. at 95. The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions. See Zafiro v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 933, 939 (1993). The introduction of the challenged testimony regarding Brown's status as a gang member and a drug dealer was therefore 8 harmless error if error at all. Brown's argument that the district court erred by admitting the testimony is without merit.