Opinion ID: 4509767
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Garrett’s Drawings

Text: Under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Notwithstanding that general prohibition, extrinsic evidence “may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). As we have routinely explained, we use a three-part test to determine whether extrinsic evidence is properly admitted under Rule 404(b): “(1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than defendant’s character; (2) the probative value must not be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice; [and] (3) the government must offer sufficient proof so that the jury could find that defendant committed the act.” United States v. Ellisor, 522 10 Case: 18-13056 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 11 of 18 F.3d 1255, 1267 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005)). When examining the probative value of an extrinsic act, we consider the government’s need for the evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt, the similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense, and the extrinsic act’s temporal remoteness from the charged offense. Culver, 598 F.3d at 748. A limiting instruction may be provided to reduce the prejudicial impact of extrinsic evidence. United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1998). On appeal, Garrett argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the drawings under Rule 404(b) because their prejudicial effect greatly outweighed their probative value. The crux of his argument is that the drawings were irrelevant in establishing the identity of the man in the video and only served as improper propensity evidence. We disagree. As an initial matter, we have no doubt that the drawings were prejudicial. We have noted previously that “a reasonable jury undoubtedly would” find evidence of “child pornography very inflammatory.” United States v. Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002). The inflammatory nature of the kind of evidence that is usually necessary to achieve a conviction in a case like this was reflected in the trial transcript. Relatively early on in the trial, the district court, after excusing the jury to hear argument on an objection, “want[ed] the record to 11 Case: 18-13056 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 12 of 18 reflect that one of the jurors had his hand over his mouth and looked like he might become ill” while Kizzy Holmes was testifying about the video of Garrett and M.C. But this sort of evidence, however inflammatory, is frequently necessary to achieve a conviction on charges of child molestation or production of child pornography. We have recognized that while the evidence may be inflammatory and prejudicial, so is the underlying conduct. See Hersh, 297 F.3d at 1243. Accordingly, while the drawings were prejudicial, they were also probative. While we have not had occasion to comment on the probative value of self-drawn drawings or cartoons, we do have analogous precedent. In United States v. Woods, for example, we concluded that a defendant’s “typed statement describing his molestation of his niece” was probative of the defendant’s “interest in child pornography” and of the identity of the person who was responsible for downloading child pornography on his computers. 684 F.3d 1045, 1065 (11th Cir. 2012). Similarly, in McGarity, we allowed the introduction of a similar statement under Rule 403 because it was probative of the defendant’s identity where he took steps “intended to avoid detection” because it helped make the Government’s case “believable but also understandable.” 669 F.3d at 1245 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 649 F.3d 1222, 1247–48 (11th Cir. 2011)). This reasoning is applicable here. Though Garrett suggests that he used the drawings as a coping mechanism to deal with sexual abuse that he suffered as a 12 Case: 18-13056 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 13 of 18 child, it is a reasonable inference is that Garrett drew the pictures because he was interested in depicting sex with children. While the drawings certainly do not establish as a certainty that Garrett was the man depicted in the video, they are certainly probative of that question. And Garrett’s main defense was that Jones was the man depicted in the video—making the question of the man’s identity central to the entire trial. Accordingly, the government had a specific need for the evidence in order to prove Garrett’s guilt. See Culver, 598 F.3d at 748. Therefore, while the drawings were likely prejudicial, as most evidence in child pornography and molestation cases is, the prejudice caused by their admission did not substantially outweigh their probative value, as Rule 404(b) requires for exclusion. We cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in this regard.