Opinion ID: 2994129
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: August 1998 Attempted Transaction

Text: Mr. Poole argues that the introduction of the August 1998 attempted transaction was improper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because the Government used that evidence for the purpose of showing his propensity to commit the crimes charged./6 Mr. Poole further states that such evidence should not have been admitted because he never was charged with any violations stemming from that incident. Additionally, Mr. Poole contends that this evidence was especially prejudicial because the attempted transaction occurred after Mr. Poole’s FOID card had been revoked. The Government counters that evidence of this attempted transaction, which had occurred subsequent to the charged offense, properly was admitted because it showed Mr. Poole’s intent and plan. The Government also points out that, in order to minimize the possibility of unfair prejudice, the district court gave a limiting instruction to the jury concerning this evidence. The trial court’s admission of evidence of other acts under Rule 404(b) is reviewed by this court under the abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Asher, 178 F.3d 486, 491-92 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 359 (1999); United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 466 (7th Cir. 1998), cert denied, 119 S. Ct. 1482 (1999); United States v. Lloyd, 71 F.3d 1256, 1264 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1250 (1996).
When evaluating the admissibility of other acts under Rule 404(b), this court uses a four-prong test that incorporates the relevancy aspect of Rule 403: (1) the evidence of the other act must address a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged; (2) the other act must be similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue; (3) the evidence of the other act must be sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant committed the other act; and (4) the other act must have probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Asher, 178 F.3d at 492; United States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 1996); Lloyd, 71 F.3d at 1264.
The other act must address a matter at issue. Mr. Poole based his defense upon his assertion that he did not knowingly give false statements on the ATF forms, thus making his own knowledge a matter at issue. Therefore, it was proper to allow the Government the opportunity to show that Mr. Poole knew full well what he was doing. We agree with the Government that evidence of the subsequent act shows intent and plan. It supported the argument that, even though the defendant claimed to be the actual purchaser in the transactions at issue, his subsequent conduct showed that his claim was not true. Furthermore, this subsequent attempted transaction, without the benefit of a FOID card, was relevant with respect to Mr. Poole’s knowledge of his state felony conviction because in July 1998, the Illinois State Police had sent Mr. Poole notice of his FOID card revocation.
The other act must be similar and close in time. The August 1998 incident occurred within a few months of the conduct that prompted Mr. Poole’s indictment. Indeed, Mr. Poole was arrested on the very day that he was scheduled to pick up the guns from the August transaction. Moreover, other than the absence of his FOID card, which had been revoked, the transaction was virtually identical to Mr. Poole’s other gun shop transactions.
The evidence must be sufficient to show that the defendant committed the other act. Mr. Poole does not deny that he committed the August 1998 attempt to purchase guns. Indeed, the jury was not presented with any evidence that disputed that the August 1998 transaction occurred.
The danger of unfair prejudice must not substantially outweigh the probative value. ’Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial.’ Lloyd, 71 F.3d at 1265 (quoting Cook v. Hoppin, 783 F.2d 684, 689 (7th Cir. 1986)). When the other three prongs of the test are met, evidence should be excluded only if any resulting unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value. See Asher, 178 F.3d at 494-95; Smith, 103 F.3d at 603-04. Care may be taken to decrease the possibility of unfair prejudice by issuing special jury instructions on the proper use of this evidence. See Smith, 103 F.3d at 604. It was undoubtably harmful to Mr. Poole’s case when evidence of his subsequent attempted transaction was offered at trial. But harm alone is not enough to warrant exclusion under the heading of unfair prejudice. See Lloyd, 71 F.3d at 1265. In this case, the evidence of the subsequent act was directly relevant to Mr. Poole’s intent, plan and knowledge of his actions. Furthermore, the district court issued limiting instructions to the jury on the proper use of this evidence. Consequently, we are not persuaded by Mr. Poole’s argument stating that unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value. Therefore, we do not believe that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence.