Opinion ID: 791081
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drug-Related Evidence

Text: 20 Relying on Federal Rules of Evidence 403 4 and 404(b) 5 , Claybourne argues the district court's ruling permitting the admission of the evidence of drug paraphernalia constitutes an abuse of discretion because the evidence was so prejudicial that it far outweighed the probative value of the evidence and poisoned the minds of the jurors. We review de novo the district court's interpretation and application of the rules of evidence, and review for an abuse of discretion the factual findings supporting its evidentiary ruling. United States v. Smith, 383 F.3d 700, 706 (8th Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Blue Bird, 372 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir.2004)). Giving great deference to the district court's determination in balancing the prejudicial effect and probative value of evidence of other crimes or acts, we will reverse the district court's evidentiary decision only when the evidence admitted clearly has no bearing on any issue involved. United States v. White, 356 F.3d 865, 870 (8th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). We also recognize Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion rather than exclusion and admits evidence of other crimes or acts relevant to any issue in the trial, unless it tends to prove only criminal disposition. United States v. Simon, 767 F.2d 524, 526 (8th Cir.1985) (citation omitted). The district court acted within its sound discretion in admitting the drug-related evidence if (1) the evidence is relevant to an issue in question other than the defendant's character; (2) clear and convincing evidence exists that the defendant committed the prior wrongful acts; and (3) the potential unfair prejudice of the evidence does not substantially outweigh its probative value. Id. 21 Claybourne maintains he had no idea a firearm was in his bedroom. He then argues the drug-related evidence found in his small bedroom should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial. Similar to his contention concerning the firearm, Claybourne makes the following argument: The mere presence of the [drug-related] items in the room where Mr. Claybourne stayed is not enough to show that he possessed them. We disagree with Claybourne's circular reasoning and conclude the district court did not err in admitting the evidence. 22 Given Claybourne's contention that Cratty secretly placed the firearm in Claybourne's closet next to his identification card and a scale, the jury was entitled to hear evidence depicting Claybourne's small bedroom as it existed the morning the police discovered the firearm. Claybourne argued to the jury that he had no idea a firearm was hidden inside a man's t-shirt and placed inside his closet. To counter this theory, the government presented the jury with plenty of non-drug-related evidence to convict Claybourne, as we outlined above. 23 The government also placed the concealed firearm in context, i.e., the firearm was discovered in the same closet with Claybourne's identification card and a hand scale, and outside the closet was a digital scale. Consistent with discovering a concealed firearm, the police also discovered a large sum of cash concealed inside a sock. By allowing the jury to hear how the small bedroom contained a firearm along with Claybourne's personal belongings, scales, and concealed cash, the government was able to attack Claybourne's theory that he is an innocent victim who unknowingly allowed a female guest to stash a firearm in his bedroom closet. That is, the jury was allowed to consider evidence revealing Claybourne had the motive, opportunity, intent, and plan to possess a firearm to protect his drug-related items and large stash of cash. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) (authorizing evidence of other wrongs or acts to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident); United States v. Conrad, 320 F.3d 851, 857-58 (8th Cir.2003) (holding drug paraphernalia was admissible under Rule 404(b) as probative on the issue of motive to possess a firearm); United States v. Fuller, 887 F.2d 144, 147 (8th Cir.1989) (holding drug paraphernalia was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show [the defendant]'s motive [to possess a firearm], given the close and well-known connection between firearms and drugs); Simon, 767 F.2d at 526-27 (affirming district court's decision to admit drug-related evidence in a felon-in-possession case). The scales and large amount of concealed cash also tended to prove the presence of the firearm in Claybourne's small bedroom was no mistake or accident. Id. 24 If the jury had been precluded from hearing evidence of drug scales and large amounts of concealed cash, i.e., unable to see the bedroom as it existed when the firearm was discovered, Cratty's story would have been powerfully deceptive. We conclude the district court did not abuse its sound discretion in admitting evidence of the scales and large amount of cash, which countered Claybourne's theory that he had no reason to possess a firearm and a conniving Cratty set him up by secretly hiding a firearm in his small bedroom.