Opinion ID: 684947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Evidence Concerning Prior Bad Acts

Text: 16 Arlt claims that the district court erred in allowing an undercover law enforcement agent to testify about his conversation with Arlt that took place three years before Russell Higgins was hired by Arlt to participate in the conspiracy. Rule 404(b) forbids the admission of evidence of prior crimes, acts, or wrongs in order to show action in conformity with that character. Rule 404(b) does, however, allow the admission of prior conduct to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 17 In order to prove that the district court erred under Rule 404(b), Arlt must demonstrate that the evidence did not satisfy the four-part test outlined in United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599 (9th Cir.1993). The evidence must also have more probative value than prejudicial effect. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d at 602. 18 The testimony in question clearly satisfies all four prongs of the Arambula-Ruiz test. The prior conduct is similar to the charged conduct, it is based on sufficient evidence (the testimony of an undercover law enforcement officer), and it is not too remote in time. See Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d at 604 (finding that five years is not too remote in time). Moreover, the evidence helped disprove Arlt's claim that he had no knowledge of the existence of a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, a material element of the conspiracy charge. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d at 603. We hold that the evidence was therefore admissible under Rule 404(b).