Opinion ID: 184262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Uncharged Crime

Text: Greer challenges the district court's denial of his motion to exclude testimony regarding the robbery he planned with Stubbs. Although evidence of other crimes is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith, it can be used for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The Second Circuit's inclusionary rule allows the admission of such evidence for any purpose other than to show a defendant's criminal propensity, as long as the evidence is relevant and satisfies the probative-prejudice balancing test of Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. United States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir.1994). The district court acknowledged the possibility of prejudice to Greer but allowed the evidence after concluding that it does show motive, intent, absence of mistake, and some plan. We review a decision on admission of evidence for abuse of discretion, id., which we will only find if the district court acted arbitrarily and irrationally, United States v. Garcia, 291 F.3d 127, 136 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1119 (2d Cir.1992)). If the district court abused its discretion, we apply harmless error analysis. United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1219-20 (2d Cir.1992). Greer argues that the district court erred in allowing Stubbs to testify about their intended robbery, asserting that the testimony showed neither motive nor intent and that, if it did, its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice. The district court did not abuse its discretion. Evidence of the proposed robbery was not constrained by Rule 404(b) because it was necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556, 570 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir.2000)). Moreover, Stubbs's testimony fits easily within the Second Circuit's Rule 404(b) inclusionary rule because it explains why Greer procured the firearm. And the district court acted well within its broad discretion in finding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed whatever threat of unfair prejudice Greer may have faced. See United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 106 (2d Cir.1982).