Opinion ID: 812940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of the Two Additional Guns

Text: Taylor argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence of the revolver and the Bersa that officers recovered from the scene of Taylor’s arrest and attributed to Javaris and Roosevelt—neither of whom were charged. He contends that the evidence of the additional firearms was inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, recognizing that a district court has “wide discretion” in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095, 1117 (7th Cir. 1999)). The district court’s ruling will be reversed “[o]nly where no reasonable person could take the view adopted by the trial court.” United States v. Vargas, 552 F.3d 550, 554 (7th Cir. 2008). Here, the district court concluded that the revolver and the Bersa were directly relevant to showing that it was more probable that Taylor, and not the other individuals arrested with him, possessed the Beretta. The court concluded that if Javaris and Roosevelt possessed their own guns, it would be more likely that Taylor possessed the third gun. The court also determined that Taylor had not shown that the evidence would mislead the jury in any way. Taylor argues that the jury could have mistakenly believed that the guns belonged to him, rather than to Javaris and Roosevelt, and that the evidence was therefore inadmissible propensity evidence. Rule 404(b) No. 11-3607 11 states that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Here, the government did not offer the evidence at issue in an attempt to show that Taylor possessed the other two guns, thereby making it more likely that he possessed the gun in question. Instead, the government used the evidence to show that two of the other people with Taylor possessed firearms of their own and that it was therefore less likely that someone else with Taylor possessed the Beretta. The language of Rule 404(b) does not apply to crimes, wrongs, or acts of another person. Thus, the only question is whether the evidence was unduly prejudicial under Rule 403. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows the district court to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. This rule requires the district court to balance the probative value of the evidence at issue against any potential harm its admission might cause. United States v. McKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, the evidence regarding the recovery of the revolver and the Bersa was probative of Taylor’s guilt in two ways. First, as the district court concluded, the fact that the other individuals arrested with Taylor possessed guns of their own makes it less likely that those individuals possessed the Beretta and more likely that the Beretta 12 No. 11-3607 was in Taylor’s possession. Second, the evidence of the other guns corroborated Starks’s eyewitness testimony regarding the December 1 shooting. At trial, Starks testified that he had observed Taylor in possession of the Beretta on various occasions, including during the December 1 shooting that occurred just prior to Taylor’s arrest. Starks also testified that Javaris fired the revolver and that Roosevelt possessed the Bersa during the December 1 shooting. The fact that Officer Cantona recovered those guns in close proximity to their alleged possessors supports Starks’s testimony. Taylor argues that even if the evidence is relevant it should have nonetheless been excluded because it revealed that officers recovered guns from other individuals closely related to him. He does not develop this argument and does not explain why the purported prejudicial effect would outweigh the probative value of the evidence. Importantly, the question under Rule 403 is not whether the evidence of the two additional firearms would have been prejudicial to Taylor, but rather whether it would have been unfairly prejudicial. As noted above, the evidence of the guns was highly probative of the fact that Taylor, and not one of the other two men, possessed the Beretta, and the evidence also served to corroborate Starks’s eyewitness testimony. Thus, even if the evidence suggested that Taylor associated with individuals who possessed guns, any potential prejudice was outweighed by the guns’ probative value. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Taylor’s motion in limine. No. 11-3607 13