Opinion ID: 807192
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevance: Time and Similarity

Text: The second prong of our Rule 404(b) test requires that the other act be “similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue.” Reese, 666 F.3d at 1015. Howard briefly argues that none of the other acts involved hiring a third party to shoot directly at a person, and thus they are too dissimilar from the crime charged to be relevant. He also argues that the other acts are too removed from the crime temporally, stressing that the chronological beginning of the otheracts evidence—the protective orders—occurred a full year before the train shootings. The similarity requirement does not require the other acts to be identical to the charged crime. They need only share common characteristics that “relate to the purpose for which the evidence is offered.” Long, 86 F.3d at 84 (quoting United States v. Torres, 977 F.2d 321, 326 (7th Cir. 1992)); see also Montani, 204 F.3d at 768 (“[T]he term ‘similarity’ has been loosely interpreted and loosely applied.”). When evidence is presented to show intent, “[s]imilarity is relevant only insofar as the acts are sufficiently alike to support an inference of criminal intent. . . . The prior acts need not be duplicates of the one for which the defendant is now being tried.” Reese, 666 F.3d at 1015 (quoting United States v. Lloyd, 71 F.3d 1256, 1265 (7th Cir. 1995)) (emphasis omitted). Howard’s payments to Windom to throw acid on Brown and to “Chris” to shoot Brown are certainly similar enough to show that Howard had the intent to harm Brown then and at the time of the train shootings. No. 11-2495 15 Further, the acts of recording Brown’s phone calls and surveilling her house are sufficiently similar to the charged crime because they share the characteristic of demonstrating Howard’s obsession with Brown. Where evidence is not introduced to show intent or knowledge, the similarity inquiry essentially insures that the crime charged and the other-act evidence are sufficiently related through the 404(b) purpose for which the other-acts evidence was introduced. See W EINSTEIN ’S F EDERAL E VIDENCE § 404.21 (2012) (“To establish that the defendant is sufficiently connected to the other act or offense, some circuits expressly require that the other act or offense be similar and close in time to the charged offense, especially if the evidence is directed to the consequential fact of intent or knowledge.”). Because we determined in the preceding section that the otheracts evidence were highly probative for the purposes for which they were introduced, no further analysis is necessary here. Howard’s argument that the other acts are not close enough in time to be relevant also fails. “The analysis of ‘how long is too long’ is a flexible one, and the answer depends on the theory for which the evidence is of- fered.” United States v. Ruiz, 178 F.3d 877, 880 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Torres, 977 F.3d at 326). The mere fact that some of the other acts are one year apart from the crime charged does not, by itself, preclude their use. See United States v. Kreiser, 15 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 1994) (determining that seven years is “close enough” to be relevant). Here, the protective orders are the acts most 16 No. 11-2495 temporally removed from the train shooting. The district court deemed these relevant because they remained in effect through the time of the shooting. Howard nonetheless argues that these acts, along with several of the other acts, are too far removed because they do not explain why he would not have attempted to shoot Brown earlier, closer to the issuance of the protective orders. The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that the government had established Howard’s ongoing obsession with Brown and his vacillation between wanting Brown back and being violently angry at her refusal to take him back. Since all of the other acts mentioned above fit neatly within this narrative, the district court did not abuse its discretion by deeming those acts sufficiently close in time to be relevant to the matter at issue.