Opinion ID: 179514
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Beauford's Testimony

Text: Henderson points first to the testimony of Ronald Beauford. The day after Washington was murderedthat is, the day after Beauford had seen the eleven o'clock news report of the discovery of Washington's body and had heard Henderson explain, that's how I handle businessHenderson called Beauford and three others together at the All-in-One Store run by Henderson. Henderson ensured that Beauford and at least one of the others were armed with guns. He told them that Washington's nephew or cousin, Jimmy Freeman, thought Henderson had killed Washington and was coming to the store for a meeting. Henderson told them, if anything happens, don't let him [Freeman] get out alive. R. 160-10, trial tr. vol. IX, p. 35. After Freeman came and went, without incident, Henderson explained to Beauford that he had to stalk Washington and that she got what she deserved ... because the bitch was a rat. Id. at 36-38. Henderson later told Beauford that Washington had told on him and that's why he was in jail ... for robbing a bank or something. Id. at 38. Beauford's testimony was legitimately offered for an admissible purpose: because it tended to prove that Henderson was the killer and what his motive was. The Freeman encounter was among the events during which Henderson admitted to Beauford that he killed Washington and why. Where the challenged evidence is intrinsic to, or inextricably intertwined with evidence of, the crime charged, Rule 404(b) is not applicable. See United States v. Gonzalez, 501 F.3d 630, 638-39 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Everett, 270 F.3d 986, 992 (6th Cir.2001). In this argument, however, Henderson attempts to tease-out and focus on one aspect of the Freeman encounter: the evidence that he, a convicted felon, possessed guns and instructed others to assault and even kill Freeman, i.e., other bad acts, the revelation of which may have unfairly prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury. Clearly, if a contemporaneous objection had been made, a limiting instruction could have been requested and given, advising the jury that Henderson had not been charged with any offenses growing out of the Freeman encounter and that they should consider the evidence only for its tendency to prove the elements of the charges stemming from Washington's death. But no objection was made, and the court can hardly be deemed to have had a sua sponte duty to specially call the jury's attention to these other bad acts. Moreover, the notion that Henderson was so unfairly prejudiced by this evidence as to adversely affect his substantial rights and impugn the fairness and integrity of the trial is preposterous. The notion that the jury was distracted by or placed any significance on the marginal details of the Freeman encounter, instead of focusing on the intended and legitimate significance of Beauford's storyi.e., Henderson's admission of retaliatory murderis simply implausible. There was no plain error in the admission of Beauford's testimony.