Opinion ID: 4509767
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Garrett’s 1999 Conviction

Text: Though the Federal Rules of Evidence “generally prohibit the admission of propensity evidence, . . . they provide a specific exception for ‘child molestation’ cases.” United States v. McGarity, 669 F.3d 1218, 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), 414(a)). Rule 414(a) states, “In a criminal case in which a defendant is accused of child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation. The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.” Fed. R. Evid. 414(a). “Child 13 Case: 18-13056 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 14 of 18 molestation” is defined in part as any crime under federal or state law involving “any conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. chapter 110,” as well as “contact between the defendant’s genitals or anus and any part of a child’s body.” Fed. R. Evid. 414(d)(2)(B); see Fed. R. Evid. 414(d)(1) (defining “child” as a “person below the age of 14”). Evidence admissible under Rule 414 still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. United States v. Woods, 684 F.3d 1045, 1064 (11th Cir. 2012). Rule 403 states, “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. When assessing a district court’s ruling under Rule 403, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect. United States v. Bradberry, 466 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006). We have no difficulty in concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Garrett’s 1999 conviction for sexual conduct with a minor. The conviction was not introduced as propensity evidence, but rather for other “relevant” matters, like intent or identity. Moreover, the introduction of the conviction also satisfies Rule 404(b)’s requirements—again, while the conviction was assuredly prejudicial, the prejudice it caused Garrett did not substantially outweigh the probative value. We affirm. 14 Case: 18-13056 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 15 of 18