Opinion ID: 164826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Wyoming Stop Evidence

Text: 22 We turn next to Nichols' claim that the district court improperly admitted testimony concerning the Wyoming traffic stop and the marijuana and cash found in that vehicle. We review the district court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Gorman, 312 F.3d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir.2002). 23 According to Nichols, the testimony about the Wyoming stop should have been excluded under Rule 404(b), which directs that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b), however, only applies to evidence of acts extrinsic to the crime charged. United States v. Green, 175 F.3d 822, 831 (10th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Other act evidence is intrinsic, and thus not excludable under Rule 404(b), when the evidence of the other act and the evidence of the crime charged are inextricably intertwined or both acts are part of a single criminal episode or the other acts were necessary preliminaries to the crime charged. United States v. Lambert, 995 F.2d 1006, 1007 (10th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant has been charged with conspiracy, evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is considered intrinsic evidence. Green, 175 F.3d at 831; see also United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d 142, 175 (5th Cir.1998) ([E]vidence of acts committed pursuant to a conspiracy and offered to prove the defendant's membership or participation in the conspiracy are not extrinsic evidence, i.e., evidence of `other' acts, for purposes of Rule 404(b). (internal quotation marks omitted)); 22 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5239, at 450 (1978). 24 Here, the district court properly concluded the evidence regarding the Wyoming stop was direct evidence of the conspiracy charged. At the motion in limine hearing, the government characterized the Wyoming stop as the first overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Tr. of Mots. in Limine Hr'g at 26, Supp. R. Vol. 1. As the government pointed out, the superseding indictment specified a time period for the conspiracy beginning some time before the 12th day of October, 1999, the date of the Wyoming stop. Superseding Indictment, R. Vol. 2, tab 81. Rule 404(b) is thus inapplicable. 5 Further, the evidence was properly admitted under Rule 402 (requiring relevance) and Rule 403 (requiring probative value not be substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice). The evidence was probative of Nichols' involvement in a conspiracy. The nearly $13,000 cash, the marijuana, the hidden compartments in Nichols' car, Nichols' false identification, and the location of the stop on the I-80/I-70 route together supported the inference that he was traveling from St. Louis to Sacramento to buy heroin from some associate there in order to bring it back to St. Louis to distribute. Though the evidence was prejudicial, it was not unfairly so. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. 25