Opinion ID: 722206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reference to July Losses

Text: 8 The district court permitted the Government to refer to a single instance of theft in July for the limited purpose of explaining why an investigation was being conducted on the day that Defendant was apprehended. The court, however, expressly rejected the Government's attempt to introduce the July losses as prior bad acts evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). 9 Defendant relies on two cases, United States v. Lamberty, 778 F.2d 59, 60 (1st Cir.1985), and United States v. Taylor, 900 F.2d 779, 781 (4th Cir.1990), to support her argument that no evidence of missing food stamps in July should have been admitted. However, both Lamberty and Taylor are distinguishable from the instant case. Here, the Government argued to the district court that the simple fact that food stamps were reported missing in July 1994 was relevant to setting the scene for the jury. The Government claimed that the Postal Inspector who observed the alleged theft by Defendant, Inspector Ron Nordyke, was planning to testify as to why he was fixated on bins in which the food stamps would be placed, as opposed to merely observing the postal employees' general conduct throughout the office. That is, the Government argued that evidence of the July food stamp losses would assist the jury in understanding why Nordyke was present in the post office, and thus, affect his credibility. Unlike the circumstances in the cases cited by Defendant, the Government did not present evidence to the jury connecting the July thefts to Defendant's August offense in any way. Rather, evidence of July food stamp losses was  'inextricably intertwined' with the case and provided the necessary context of the charge for the jury. United States v. Andaverde, 64 F.3d 1305, 1314-15 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1055 (1996). The district court's allowance of such limited references did not amount to an abuse of discretion. 10