Opinion ID: 4544635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Uncharged Drug Transaction

Text: Detective Calhoun testified about the traffic stop that he effected on Muller on the same day that Brundige died. Muller objected to this testimony, arguing that the government was attempting to introduce drug use and money that was 6 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 7 of 25 uncharged, which was irrelevant and prejudicial. Specifically, Muller argued that introducing evidence of a prior drug transaction was, in essence, Rule 404(b) evidence that the government did not properly notice. The government, in turn, argued that it needed to prove a drug deal, that the drug deal led to the overdose death of Brundige, and that, on the day that Brundige was pronounced dead, Muller was riding around in a yellow Mustang selling drugs with packaging similar to that which he sold to Williams. The district court overruled Muller’s objection, concluding that the evidence in question was not covered by Rule 404(b) because it was “part of the entire story and [was] inextricably intertwined.” In any event, even if the information were covered, the probative value of the testimony was not outweighed by the prejudice. On appeal, Muller once again raises his argument that Calhoun’s testimony ran afoul of Rule 404(b). We normally review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2005). A district court abuses its discretion when it “applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or commits a clear error in judgment.” United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2005). We will not reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling if the error was harmless. United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1323 (11th Cir. 2011). An error is 7 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 8 of 25 harmless if “sufficient evidence uninfected by any error supports the verdict, and the evidence did not have a substantial influence on the outcome.” Id. (quotation omitted). Evidence admitted in violation of Rule 404(b) is considered harmless if there is other substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000). Rule 404(b) states that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character,” unless such evidence is used for another purpose, “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1)–(2). In a criminal case, the prosecutor, “[o]n request by a defendant,” must: “(A) provide reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and (B) do so before trial—or during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2)(A)-(B). Evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) if: (1) the evidence is “relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character;” (2) “as part of the relevance analysis,” there is “sufficient proof so that a jury could find that the defendant committed the extrinsic act;” and (3) “the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice, and the evidence must meet the 8 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 9 of 25 other requirements of Rule 403.” United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1107 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We apply this test, whenever the extrinsic activity reflects adversely on the character of the defendant, regardless whether that activity might give rise to criminal liability.” Id. at 1107–08 (quotation omitted). However, we have stated that “evidence of criminal activity other than the charged offense is not ‘extrinsic’ under Rule 404(b), and thus falls outside the scope of the Rule, when it is (1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, (2) necessary to complete the story of the crime, or (3) inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). We further explained: Evidence, not part of the crime charged but pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context, motive, and set-up of the crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury. And evidence is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense if it forms an integral and natural part of the witness’s accounts of the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which the defendant was indicted. Id. (quotation, citations, and alterations omitted). Regardless of whether the evidence of criminal activity other than the charged offenses falls inside or outside the scope of Rule 404(b), it still must 9 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 10 of 25 satisfy the requirements of Rule 403. Id. Rule 403 states that “the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. “Of course, most relevant evidence is prejudicial to an accused. The purpose of Rule 403 is not to preclude the use of prejudicial evidence but the unfair use of prejudicial evidence.” United States v. Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d 1092, 1102 (11th Cir. 1983). Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Calhoun’s testimony. His testimony was relevant and necessary to complete the story of the crime and was inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, and thus outside the ambit of Rule 404(b). Detective Calhoun’s testimony completed the story about the charged November 9, 2016, offense, explaining how law enforcement came into contact with Muller in the hours after Brundige’s death, and why the officers stopped Muller’s vehicle as soon as feasible after observing the uncharged drug transaction. The search of Muller’s vehicle which resulted from that traffic stop revealed that Muller had been selling drugs in the same aluminum foil wrapping as the two packets of drugs which Muller had sold Williams in the charged offense. The challenged testimony of Detective Calhoun related events that occurred less than twelve hours after the 10 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 11 of 25 charged offense, at a location very close to the charged offense, and revealed evidence that was highly probative of Muller’s guilt in the charged offense. We conclude that the challenged evidence was closely linked in time and circumstance to the charged offense, formed on integral and natural part of the witnesses’ accounts of the circumstances surrounding the charged offense, and therefore did not constitute extrinsic evidence subject to Rule 404(b). We also agree with the district court that its prejudice did not outweigh its probative value. Therefore, we affirm as to this issue.