Opinion ID: 6103490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of the whatsapp messages

Text: Only William challenges the admission of the WhatsApp messages sent for about a month after March 23rd. He argues the messages should have been excluded for lack of relevance because the indictment charged conduct only up through March 23, 2017. He also says that even if the messages were relevant, they were unfairly prejudicial, and claims that the government failed to provide the jury with proper context for the messages. Finally, he argues the messages were inappropriate character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Evidence is relevant if it is probative and material. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of, inter alia, unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence of a person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to show a propensity to act in a particular way but may be admissible for another purpose. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1)–(2). Evidence of bad acts that are part of the charged crime is admissible as intrinsic evidence. United States v. RodríguezSoler, 773 F.3d 289, 297–98 (1st Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Souza, 749 F.3d 74, 84 (1st Cir. 2014) (holding intrinsic evidence includes other acts that go to an element of the charged offense); United States v. Brizuela, 962 F.3d 784, 793–94 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding that uncharged conduct is intrinsic and not - 14 - barred by Rule 404(b) when it arises from the same series of transactions as the charged offense). The government argues that the messages were relevant to the elements of a charged crime: engag[ing] in the business of dealing in firearms without a license. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A). A person engages in the business of dealing in firearms when he devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C). Excluded from this category are people who make[] occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sell[] all or part of [their] personal collection of firearms. Id. Because the messages showed William was engaged in the business of dealing in firearms with the purpose of making a livelihood and profit, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the WhatsApp messages that happened in the month after March 23rd as intrinsic evidence of the charged gundealing crime. And the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding they were not unfairly prejudicial. See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997) (explaining that evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it might lure the factfinder - 15 - into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged).