Opinion ID: 2981046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the Evidence Admitted for a Proper Purpose?

Text: Rule 404(b) instructs that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as prooving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or lack of accident.” FED. R. EVID. 404(b). In Merriweather, this Court carefully explained the steps courts must take to ensure Rule 404(b) is properly applied. See 78 F.3d at 1076-77. In order to admit evidence under Rule 404(b), the proponent of the evidence must identify the specific it’s for a proper purpose. I think that it did in fact occur. We had the testimony of the police officer here about that. We had a tape, which memorialized the transaction. And I don’t think that there is much, much of a question here as to 403 balancing of it. I mean, it is something which the government has to prove. We’ve got a lot of evidence of cocaine transactions in this case, which I don’t think that it’s unfairly prejudicial to the defendant to have this piece of evidence come in. (R. 303 at 307:15-308:7.) 10 purpose for which the evidence is being offered. Id. at 1076. Furthermore, that issue must be in dispute or a fact that the statutory elements of the crime require the government to prove. Id. at 1076-77. If it is, the court must then balance the probative value of the evidence against any unfair prejudice under Rule 403. Id. at 1077. The evidence may not be admitted if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Id.; see also FED. R. EVID. 403. If Rule 403 is satisfied, “the district court must ‘clearly, simply, and correctly’ instruct the jury as to the specific purpose for which they may consider the evidence.” Merriweather, 78 F.3d at 1077 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186, 1193 (6th Cir. 1994)) (emphasis in original). The prosecution argued, and the district court agreed, that the evidence of Defendant’s prior drug deals from the Birmingham Conspiracies was admissible for the purpose of demonstrating Defendant’s specific intent. We agree. In United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186 (6th Cir. 1994), we explained how to properly determine whether prior acts are admissible to establish a defendant’s intent. Id. at 1191-93. Although intent is not put in issue every time a defendant pleads not guilty, “[w]e recognize[d] that there is a class of cases in which intent is in issue precisely because a specific intent, separate and apart from underlying prohibited conduct, is made an element of the crime charged.” Id. at 1192. One such type of crime is possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Id. In Johnson, we stated the following rule: “where there is thrust upon the government, either by virtue of the defense raised by the defendant or by virtue of the elements of the crime charged, the affirmative duty to prove that the underlying prohibited act was done with a specific criminal intent, other acts evidence may be introduced under Rule 404(b).” Id. Accordingly, the government was permitted to prove Defendant’s specific intent to distribute cocaine through evidence of prior acts. See United States 11 v. Trujillo, 376 F.3d 593, 605 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding the second step in the Rule 404(b) analysis satisfied because the defendant was charged with a specific intent crime).