Opinion ID: 360874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jury instructions regarding prior offenses

Text: 28 Barnes next argues that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that evidence of his prior drug deals could be used only to show his state of mind, rather than to show that he was a man of bad character. See United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977). Although Barnes' counsel argued strenuously at trial that this evidence was entirely inadmissible, once the evidence was admitted, he made no request for a limiting instruction. The question, therefore, is whether the trial court committed plain error in failing Sua sponte to give the instruction. See Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 52(b); E. g., United States v. Roger, 465 F.2d 996 (5th Cir. 1972). 29 Federal Rule of Evidence 105 provides: When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, Upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. (emphasis added). This policy is also embodied in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30 which states in part: No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto . . . . But see Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 52(b). 30 In United States v. Sisto, 534 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1976), we emphasized the importance of counsel in safeguarding their client's rights: The structure of our criminal trial system is founded in large part on a belief in the efficacy of the adversary system, and considerations of judicial economy weigh more heavily in our decisions when counsel for the complaining party has failed to bring a potentially reversible error to the attention of the trial court. Id. at 624. (footnote omitted). Thus, in a context similar to this case, we have admonished: Plain error appears only when the impeaching testimony is extremely damaging, the need for the instruction is obvious, and the failure to give it is so prejudicial as to affect the substantial rights of the accused. United States v. Garcia, 530 F.2d 650, 656 (5th Cir. 1976), Citing Upham v. United States, 328 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1964). 7 31 Barnes' case does not meet the plain error threshold established in Garcia. In view of McClure's testimony against Barnes, the evidence of past offenses was not extremely damaging. McClure's testimony, if believed by the jury, 8 established all the elements of the charges. In addition, Donna Ballard's statement corroborated McClure's story. Applying Garcia's second criterion, the need for a limiting instruction was not obvious. Counsel may refrain from requesting an instruction in order not to emphasize potentially damaging evidence, Sica v. United States, 325 F.2d 831, 836 (9th Cir. 1963), Cert. denied, 376 U.S. 952, 84 S.Ct. 970, 11 L.Ed.2d 972 (1964); Malatkofski v. United States, 179 F.2d 905, 914 (1st Cir. 1950), and for other strategic reasons, Sisto v. United States, 534 F.2d at 624 n.9. We decline to second guess counsel's decision. Finally, although we cannot fairly say that the evidence of prior offenses was not damaging, it was not so damaging as to require us to reverse on the basis of plain error.