Opinion ID: 683963
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Provide 404(b) Limiting Instruction

Text: 5 At trial, the district court admitted evidence of the marijuana plants found near Latham, Kansas which were not the subject of the indictment in this case. The district court also admitted items seized from Daryl Emmons' home, including outdated catalogues for purchasing marijuana seeds and a ledger relating to growing activities in 1987 and 1988. Additionally, the court admitted tape recordings of a conversation in which Daryl Emmons discussed the possibility that he might purchase cocaine and marijuana for resale. 6 Daryl Emmons contends that this evidence related to other bad acts and so could only be admitted under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) with an instruction from the district court limiting consideration of the evidence to permissible purposes. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); see United States v. Rivera, 837 F.2d 906, 913 (10th Cir.1988), rev'd on other grounds on reh'g, 874 F.2d 754 (10th Cir.1989), overturned, 900 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir.1990) (court permitting 404(b) evidence must give limiting instruction at the time the evidence is admitted and in the general charge). Emmons claims that the district court erred by failing to give limiting instructions on this evidence as requested. 7 Rule 404(b) and the accompanying limiting instruction requirement do not apply here, because the evidence at issue is related to the criminal offense for which Daryl Emmons is charged. Rule 404(b) only applies to evidence of acts extrinsic to the charged crime. United States v. Record, 873 F.2d 1363, 1372 n. 5 (10th Cir.1989). 8 Emmons was involved in a largescale marijuana operation which took place over a period of years. Evidence in the record shows that Daryl Emmons coordinated growth of marijuana in different fields each year to avoid detection and involved various persons to tend the crops. Record at vol. II, 40-41. The production of marijuana by Rivard and Roger Emmons in Greenwood County, which resulted in the indictment in this case, was just one segment of the illegal activity. The ledger, catalogues, and evidence of other marijuana operations show Emmons' significant and continuing involvement in efforts to produce large amounts of marijuana for sale. It was relevant for the jury to understand Daryl Emmons' activities in order that they might evaluate evidence connecting him to the Greenwood County operation. The evidence at issue was thus inextricably intertwined with the Greenwood County marijuana production and so did not constitute Rule 404(b) evidence. United States v. Oles, 994 F.2d 1519, 1522 (10th Cir.1993). 9 The district court admitted most of the evidence at issue under Rule 404(b), stating that it showed intent or knowledge. The fact that the district court initially admitted the evidence under Rule 404(b) does not necessarily subject the evidence to that rule's limitations. After hearing the entire case, the district court properly concluded that the evidence was not extrinsic, in its memorandum and order denying defendants' motion for a new trial. The failure to give a requested limiting instruction when the evidence was admitted was not reversible error, because in the end no such instruction was necessary. Jurors were not confused by competing instructions; they received no instruction at all as to this evidence.