Opinion ID: 445503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence regarding other arsons

Text: 32 The defendant's second claim of error is that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of a larger conspiracy beyond the scope of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment. The defendant argues that the testimony regarding lists, and one list itself, should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial under FED.R.EVID. 403. The government responds that the evidence of the lists was properly admitted because the arson of the Double Z was planned as the first in a series of the fire-bombing of stores. We agree with the government's argument. The lists were an inextricable part of the proof of the plan to burn the Double Z and the larger scheme of which it was a part. 33 First, the testimony of Nickerson and Oden regarding the preparation for the arson of the Double Z unavoidably involved proof that other arsons were contemplated by the defendant. When the defendant referred to the job when planning it with Nickerson he did not use Double Z but referred to this store as one of the places ... on the list. The defendant also referred to the other jobs which both Oden and Nickerson could do if they were to help him with the Double Z job. 34 Furthermore, the probative value of the testimony about the lists and the possibility of other arsons is very high since the defendant only referred to Double Z as one of the places on the list. The danger of undue prejudice was limited by the fact that the trial court instructed the jury to consider such other acts only on the question of plan, intent, and knowledge. Finally, out of 256 pages of transcripts, only three pages contain references to other contemplated arsons. We conclude, therefore, that the trial judge committed no error in admitting the lists into evidence. 35