Opinion ID: 216967
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: In Issue

Text: This court has specifically held that where the crime charged is one requiring specific intent, the prosecutor may use 404(b) evidence to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent notwithstanding any defense the defendant might raise. Johnson, 27 F.3d at 1192. See also United States v. Bilderbeck, 163 F.3d 971, 977 (6th Cir.1999) (stating that where the crime charged is one requiring specific intent, the prosecutor may use 404(b) evidence to prove that the defendant acted with specific intent notwithstanding that the defense was lack of possession, not lack of intent to distribute). But see United States v. Jenkins, 593 F.3d 480, 486 (6th Cir.2010) (questioning whether intent is truly in issue when the defendant claims he did not possess the drugs at all, let alone possess with intent to distribute). Hardy indicated to the district court that he was challenging both knowledge and intent. Intent is in issue because Hardy denied possessing the cocaine altogether. See Johnson, 27 F.3d at 1193 (holding that intent was in issue where the defendant pled not guilty and therefore did not admit he possessed the cocaine, but denied possession altogether). On the other hand, knowledge was not in issue because Hardy did not claim he was unaware that he was committing a criminal act. See Johnson, 27 F.3d at 1194 (holding that knowledge was not in issue because the defendant did not argue that he possessed the drugs by mistake or accident, but denied that he was possessing the drugs at all).