Opinion ID: 2774634
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: admission of john wagner testimony

Text: Plato contends that certain testimony by Wagner was inadmissible, as it included evidence of extrinsic acts subject to the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Plato ambiguously challenges two parts of Wagner’s testimony. First, Plato challenges Wagner’s testimony on direct examination that, as Plato’s personal accountant, he assisted Plato in only declaring salary income for tax purposes, to the exclusion of other income Plato was receiving from MPC in various forms; as part of this testimony, Wagner admitted his personal awareness that this was wrong. Second, Plato challenges Wagner’s testimony on re-direct that he committed five separate crimes with Plato. Notably, this second instance of testimony referenced Wagner’s testimony on cross-examination, during which defense counsel asked for “a list of all the crimes that you say you’ve committed,” followed by inquiries of each crime individually. Regarding the second instance of testimony, Plato asserts that Rule 404(b) prohibited such testimony since the Government gave the required 404(b) notice only for Plato’s previous convictions from years prior to the alleged crimes, while Wagner’s testimony included evidence of extrinsic crimes subject to notice under Rule 404(b).
Though the parties disagree on the applicable standard of review, plainerror review is appropriate. Plato asserts this court should review the ruling under a heightened abuse-of-discretion standard, which is appropriate for properly preserved objections to the admission of evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Government counters that the claim should only be 19 Case: 13-20222 Document: 00512919459 Page: 20 Date Filed: 01/29/2015 No. 13-20222 reviewed for plain error because Plato did not object to the testimony at the time of admission. Though it is true that Plato obtained a running objection, based on relevance and Federal Rule of Evidence 403, to Wagner’s first instance of testimony about his tax-preparation work during direct examination, this objection fails to preserve error as to either instance of testimony at issue here. First, even though the tax-preparation testimony clearly falls within the scope of the objection, Plato’s bases for that objection at trial were relevance and Rule 403, while his basis on appeal is Rule 404(b); as a result, no error was preserved regarding the tax-preparation testimony. 32 Second, regarding the later, crime-commission testimony, there is no record basis for applying the running objection to that testimony. 33 Even were we to construe the running objection as extending to that later testimony, it would yet fail to preserve error since a different basis is argued on appeal. 34 In sum, since Plato did not properly object to the challenged testimony, or alternatively asserts a different basis for objection on appeal, we review Plato’s challenge for plain error.
As a threshold matter, the parties disagree over the application of Rule 404(b) due to competing characterizations of the evidence as intrinsic or extrinsic. The distinction is critical since Rule 404(b) enumerates purposes for which extrinsic evidence is admissible, 35 while intrinsic evidence is not subject to the prohibition of 404(a), nor to the strictures of 404(b), and is generally 32 See Williams, 343 F.3d at 434 & n.9. 33 Broadly, the challenged testimony concerns Wagner’s commission of crimes with Plato, which Wagner listed as tax fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud; of these, only tax fraud is even tenuously connected to the earlier taxpreparation testimony to which defense counsel obtained the running objection. 34 See Williams, 343 F.3d at 434 & n.9. 35 See FED. R. EVID. 404(b). 20 Case: 13-20222 Document: 00512919459 Page: 21 Date Filed: 01/29/2015 No. 13-20222 admissible. 36 This court defines evidence of another act as intrinsic if the act relates to the offense in any of three ways: (1) evidence of the other act is “inextricably intertwined” with that of the offense; or (2) “both acts are part of a single criminal episode”; or (3) “the other acts were necessary preliminaries to the crime charged.” 37 Applying this rubric, we conclude that the challenged testimony qualifies as intrinsic evidence, falling outside the purview of 404(b). Wagner’s taxpreparation testimony is “inextricably intertwined” with evidence of the offense-scheme, since Wagner’s testimony addressed how Plato concealed the income derived from the offense-scheme on both his personal and MPC’s corporate tax returns, which furthered the offense-scheme. 38 Second, although its connection to the offense is more attenuated, Wagner’s testimony of wire fraud and money laundering is intrinsic as part of the same criminal episode, since those acts occurred during Wagner’s employment with MPC and as a part of the offense-scheme. 39 As a result, the testimony was not prohibited under Rule 404(b) and its admission does not constitute plain error.