Opinion ID: 2972523
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Firearm and Bullet-Proof Vest

Text: Goliday also argues that the admission of the firearm and bullet-proof vest over his objection was erroneous. We review a district court’s decision to admit evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henley, 360 F.3d 509, 518 (6th Cir. 2004). Relevant evidence, that is, evidence having “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” Fed. R. Evid. 401, is made generally admissible by Federal Rule of Evidence 402. A district court, however, may exclude relevant evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” No. 04-3834/3897 United States v. Goliday Page 8 Fed. R. Evid. 403. We will reverse a district court’s decision to admit relevant evidence only if it was an abuse of discretion and the error was not harmless. Diamond v. Howd, 288 F.3d 932, 934 (6th Cir. 2002). We have long recognized firearms and ammunition as tools of the drug trafficking trade and have consistently concluded that a district court does not abuse its discretion by admitting such evidence when it is related to the crime charged. United States v. Arnott, 704 F.2d 322, 325-26 (6th Cir. 1983). We have, however, held that when a defendant is not charged with a firearms violation and a firearm is not relevant to the crimes charged, a district court abuses its discretion in admitting the firearm. See e.g., Brubaker v. United States, 183 F.2d 894, 898 (6th Cir. 1950) (holding that “the presence of the revolvers in his suitcase had no bearing whatsoever upon the charge of receiving the stolen car”). Nonetheless, we have recognized that “dealers in narcotics are well known to be dangerous criminals usually carrying weapons,” United States v. Korman, 614 F.2d 541, 546 (6th Cir. 1980), and in the words of the Second Circuit, “[e]xperience on the trial and appellate benches has taught that substantial dealers in narcotics keep firearms on their premises as tools of the trade almost to the same extent as they keep scales, glassine bags, cutting equipment and other narcotics equipment,” United States v. Wiener, 534 F.2d 15, 18 (2d Cir. 1976). Goliday was discovered with a substantial amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine, and the officers observed numerous individuals attempt to purchase narcotics from Goliday. Additionally, the handgun and ammunition in this case was found in the northwest bedroom of Goliday’s residence along with the cocaine and two pit-bull dogs standing guard. Under these No. 04-3834/3897 United States v. Goliday Page 9 circumstances, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the handgun, ammunition, and bullet-proof vest as evidence of Goliday’s intent to engage in the drug trade.