Opinion ID: 752460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hinsch's Testimony

Text: 19 Loveless argues that the district court improperly admitted Hinsch's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) which provides: 20 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.... 21 Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion; it allows a court to admit evidence of prior bad acts unless it tends to prove only a defendant's criminal disposition. United States v. Tomberlin, 130 F.3d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir.1997). 22 In order for evidence of prior bad acts to be admissible, the evidence must be: (1) relevant to a material issue; (2) proved by a preponderance of the evidence; (3) higher in probative value than in prejudicial effect; and (4) similar in kind and close in time to the crime charged. United States v. Sills, 120 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir.1997). This Court reviews a district court's decision to admit evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts under an abuse of discretion standard. Tomberlin, 130 F.3d at 1320. 23 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Hinsch's testimony. There was a marked similarity between when, how, where, and how often Loveless supplied drugs to Reber and to Hinsch. This testimony was relevant to the material issues of Loveless' intent to, knowledge of, and opportunity to commit the crime charged, as well as being relevant to a common scheme or plan that Loveless used to supply others with drugs. See United States v. Bryson, 110 F.3d 575, 583 (8th Cir.1997) (finding evidence that defendant had a prior conviction for distributing drugs was admissible under Rule 404(b) as relevant to show her knowledge of and intent to commit current charge of conspiracy to distribute drugs); United States v. Moore, 98 F.3d 347, 350 (8th Cir.1996) (noting that many of this court's prior decisions support the district court's conclusion that evidence of prior drug offenses may be relevant to the issue of a defendant's intent to commit a later drug offense); United States v. Crouch, 46 F.3d 871, 875 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 871, 116 S.Ct. 193, 133 L.Ed.2d 129 (1995) (finding evidence that defendant committed prior illegal gun sale was admissible under Rule 404(b) as relevant both to defendant's opportunity to commit current charge and to common scheme to sell firearms). 24 Loveless argues that the district court erred in admitting Hinsch's testimony because he was never charged with any offense related to it. We disagree. In order for evidence of prior bad acts to be admissible under Rule 404(b), the government must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the acts. Sills, 120 F.3d at 920. To meet this burden, the government must introduce evidence upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that the acts occurred and that the defendant was the actor. United States v. Robinson, 110 F.3d 1320 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 432, 139 L.Ed.2d 331 (1997) (holding that evidence of prior bad acts was admissible when police officers testified that defendant committed the act). Hinsch provided many details about the exact nature and extent of his drug transactions with Loveless. Based upon this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Loveless supplied Hinsch with methamphetamine.
25 Loveless argues that the district court improperly admitted Hinsch's testimony because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value. Hinsch's testimony, Loveless contends, was extremely prejudicial because it had such a close identity with the crime charged, and it had limited probative value in light of the substantial evidence implicating Loveless in the charged conspiracy. 26 Federal Rule of Evidence 403 permits a district court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Fed.R.Evid. 403. The rule is concerned only with unfair prejudice, that is, an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis. United States v. Warfield, 97 F.3d 1014, 1027 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1119, 137 L.Ed.2d 319 (1997) (citation omitted). 27 This Court gives broad deference to a district court's determination under Rule 403. We do not reweigh the value of the material against its potential for harm to the defendant, but determine only whether the district judge abused its discretion in admitting it. United States v. Holmes, 822 F.2d 802, 806 (8th Cir.1987) (citation omitted). 28 We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Hinsch's testimony. 3 As previously noted, this testimony was relevant to several material issues in the case. We disagree with Loveless' contention that it was unfairly prejudicial because of the similarity between the manner in which Loveless supplied drugs to both Hinsch and Reber. See United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1573 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1011, 136 L.Ed.2d 888 (1997) (holding evidence that defendant had previously smuggled marijuana was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 and was properly admitted in case where defendant was charged with conspiring to distribute marijuana); United States v. House, 939 F.2d 659, 663 (8th Cir.1991) (holding evidence that defendant had sold crack on a daily basis during month before his arrest was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 and was properly admitted in case where defendant was charged with possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute). Moreover, this Court has been reluctant to find that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial when the district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction, instructing the jury not to use the evidence as proof of the acts charged in the indictment. McCarthy, 97 F.3d at 1573. The district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction before Hinsch testified and again in its final instructions. Under these circumstances, it was within the discretion of the district court to allow Hinsch's testimony.