Opinion ID: 798531
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of the uncharged Lacary scheme

Text: Benavides claims the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the Lacary fraud as “inextricably intertwined” with the charged offense. More specifically, he claims the Lacary and Lily fraud were distinct events, thus making the Lacary evidence inadmissible, for it would tend to prove Benavides’ character (fraudster) and show action in conformity with that character (the fraudster committed fraud).3 We disagree. True, a party generally cannot use “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts” to prove a person’s bad character and “show action in conformity therewith.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). But bad acts evidence falls outside of this prohibition—indeed, it falls outside of Rule 404(b) altogether—if it is not extrinsic to, but instead part of, the charged crime. This occurs if the bad acts are “(1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, (2) necessary to complete the story of the crime, or (3) inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.” United States v. Utter, 97 F.3d 509, 514 (11th Cir. 1996). For example, in United States v. Foster, 889 F.2d 1049, 1053 (11th Cir. 3 Benavides also alleges the district court erred by holding, in the alternative, that it could admit the evidence for “other purposes” besides character. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Because we find the district court properly admitted the Lacary evidence as inextricably intertwined with the charged offense, we need not reach this question. 10 1989), this Court upheld a district court’s admission of testimony about one of the defendant’s prior drug smuggling trips while on trial for a later one, because the central issue was whether the defendant just went along for the ride or if he actively participated in the scheme. In upholding the district court’s decision, this Court stated: Testimony concerning the September 13th trip did not merely implicate Mr. Foster’s bad character or propensity to traffick in drugs, it specifically described his participation in a scheme involving the same mode of transportation (a commercial airline) between the same cities (Miami and Savannah), to smuggle the same amount (one kilogram) of the same drug (cocaine), in the same manner of hiding it (in a girdle) on the same person (Ms. Davis)—only 17 days prior to his arrest for a virtually identical transaction. Foster, 889 F.2d at 1053. Here, the Lacary testimony described Benavides’ participation in a scheme involving the same manner of fraud (submitting false Medicare claims), using the same type of company (one claiming to sell DME), hiring the same intermediaries to bill the claims and launder the money (All-Med and Cashflow), and involving the same main players (Guerra and Benavides)—shortly after Medicare quit making reimbursement payments to Lacary. The district court, therefore, stayed within its sound discretion by admitting the evidence as inextricably intertwined with the charged offense.