Opinion ID: 807192
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Purpose for the Other-Acts Evidence

Text: The first prong instructs the district court to consider whether the evidence of the other act is being introduced for a purpose other than to show the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged. See Reese, 666 F.3d at 1015; see also United States v. Jones, 389 F.3d 753, 756 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Evidence of prior convictions is not admissible to show a defendant’s propensity to commit a crime, nor to show that he or she acted in conformity with that propensity on the occasion in question.”). Though Howard does not contend that the other- acts evidence was admitted to show propensity, it is helpful for us to begin by analyzing the purpose that each piece of evidence serves so that we may determine 12 No. 11-2495 how probative it is, an important part of the fourth prong of our test. The district court correctly observed that the protective orders, which prevented Howard from seeing his exgirlfriend and his son, were strong evidence of a likely motive to kill Brown. The protective orders therefore serve a legitimate non-propensity purpose. Similarly, the caustic liquid incident may aid in proving motive since Howard’s decision to hire someone to accost Brown tends to show that he had a reason to harm her. In addition, since specific intent to harm Brown is an element of the crimes charged and the caustic liquid incident is highly probative of Howard’s present intent, this incident satisfies the non-propensity purpose of intent. The government met its burden of “affirmatively show[ing] why a particular prior conviction tends to show the more forward-looking fact of purpose, design, or volition to commit the new crime.” Jones, 389 F.3d at 757. The next prior bad act—Howard’s threat to shoot Brown unless she dropped the charges against him—is powerful evidence of his intent to harm Brown and his motive to kill her. The motive underlying his threat to shoot her is probative of his motive underlying his later decision to kill her.2 2 The district court also found the evidence of the caustic liquid incident and of Howard’s pantomimed threat to be admissible for the purpose of proving identity. In light of the (continued...) No. 11-2495 13 The district court properly deemed Howard’s surveillance of Brown’s home and his recording of her calls as illustrative of his motive and intent to reconcile with Brown, which eventually morphed into anger toward her. Evidence of these other acts is therefore probative of Howard’s motive and intent to kill Brown. In addition, the recording of Brown’s calls is relevant as evidence of Howard’s preparation and planning of the crimes. Similarly, Howard’s hiring of “Chris” to shoot and kill Brown is relevant because it illustrates that Howard had a reason or motive to kill Brown, an intent to kill Brown, and a plan for killing Brown. Further, this plan shares characteristics with the crime charged. Howard’s provision of crack to Virgin after the shootings is also probative of the existence of a criminal plan, specifically to reimburse someone for killing Brown. Finally, we agree with the district court that Howard’s recruitment of Virgin to retrieve his gun and radios illustrates that Howard had the means and opportunity to have Brown killed, given that he had the tools necessary to conduct the attempted murder. Because each piece of other-acts evidence disputed by Howard serves a permissible (i.e., non-propensity) purpose, the first prong of the 404(b) framework is satisfied. 2 (...continued) fact that we have already determined that this evidence was admissible for other purposes, there is no need to discuss its admissibility for the purpose of proving identity. 14 No. 11-2495