Opinion ID: 3055077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bernard Joerg’s testimony

Text: Perez first contends the district court erred in refusing to allow him to elicit testimony from another hotel manager, Bernard Joerg, that a second felon worked 6 Case: 12-12094 Date Filed: 06/25/2013 Page: 7 of 11 at the hotel. According to Perez, this testimony would have permitted the jury to infer this other hotel employee possessed the cocaine, gun, and ammunition found in Room 306. On the government’s objection, the district court ruled Joerg was not the proper witness through which Perez could elicit testimony about the other employee’s conviction. 2 Perez has not shown the district court abused its discretion in this instance. “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Defense counsel told the district court Joerg’s testimony was intended to show “[s]omeone else could have put the drugs there,” namely, the other employee with a criminal record. In other words, counsel sought to introduce evidence of the other employee’s criminal history to show that employee’s bad character, which would suggest it was that employee, not Perez, who committed the crimes for which Perez was charged. This, the district court correctly concluded, was improper propensity evidence under Rule 404(b).