Opinion ID: 673759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disputed Evidence

Text: 4 During trial, the district court permitted the government to introduce evidence of the seizure of the scales and cash. Defense counsel objected, contending that both items were irrelevant to the charged crime and that, even if relevant, were impermissibly prejudicial because they suggested to the jury that defendant engaged in drug trafficking. 5 Under the Rules of Evidence, relevance hinges on its 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. Even relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed.R.Evid. 403. Furthermore, evidence of other acts is not admissible merely to show a criminal character. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); see United States v. Blankenship, 775 F.2d 735, 739 (6th Cir.1985). 6 After considering defense counsel's objection, the district court offered the following grounds for permitting the government to introduce the disputed material: 7 [T]he house ... was searched in which there was more than one person living, Mr. Stokes was in control of certain aspects of that house which included places in which a large quantity of money plus firearms ... that are, I presume, his.... Now, to me that sounds like a basic showing of relevance with respect to the possessory element of this offense.... And I do not believe that the danger of unfair prejudice, that is to say with respect to the possible commission of other offenses, substantially outweighs its probative value. 8 This court reviews a trial court's evidentiary rulings with respect to relevance and prejudicial effect for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hawkins, 969 F.2d 169, 174 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1021 (1993). Although a district corut must proceed with caution when authorizing the introduction of acts that imply other unrelated and uncharged criminal activity, we conclude that the court in this case exercised the requisite degree of care. No mention of drug trafficking was permitted and the court itself offered a plausible explanation of the relevance of the evidentiary material to the crime charged. Under the circumstances, no abuse of discretion occurred. See United States v. Hatfield, 815 F.2d 1068, 1072 (6th Cir.1987) (permitting admission of burglary paraphernalia in context of firearms prosecution).