Opinion ID: 3045083
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Evidence of Criminal History

Text: Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) provides in relevant part that: “Evidence 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, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident . . . .” We have recognized that Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion rather than exclusion, and we favor the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts if such evidence is “‘relevant for any purpose other than to show a mere propensity or disposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime.’” United States v. Cruz, 326 F.3d 392, 395 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 765 (3d Cir. 1978)). Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides in relevant part that “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. . . .” 10 The court conducts a four-part test to determine whether evidence is admissible under Rules 403 and 404(b): “(1) the evidence must have a proper purpose; (2) it must be relevant; (3) its probative value must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice; and (4) the court must charge the jury to consider the evidence only for the limited purposes for which it is admitted.” Id. (citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988)). We review the district court’s decision to admit evidence of prior “bad acts” for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sampson, 980 F.2d 883, 886 (3d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). We find that all four requirements for admission of Rule 404(b) evidence were met. The District Court permitted the Government to present evidence of D’Amario’s criminal history for three limited purposes: (1) to establish that the Memorandum was a “true threat”; (2) to prove D’Amario’s criminal intent; and (3) to show D’Amario’s motive in sending the Memorandum to Judge Irenas. SA517. As to the purpose of establishing a true threat, the jury was required to determine whether a reasonable person in Judge Irenas’s position would have viewed the Memorandum as a threat. The Court noted that Judge Irenas was well aware of D’Amario’s criminal record, and allowed the Government to introduce evidence of that criminal history. The Court conducted a Rule 403 balancing test and determined that the evidence was essential to the jury’s determination of whether the Memorandum was a true threat because the jury could not determine whether it would have been reasonable 11 for Judge Irenas to view the Memorandum as such unless it shared his knowledge of D’Amario. The Court also concluded that under Rules 403 and 404 the evidence was essential to prove D’Amario’s criminal intent. The Government was entitled to show that D’Amario sent the Memorandum because he understood that the language he employed, combined with Judge Irenas’s knowledge of his record, would tend to intimidate the