Opinion ID: 2675586
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Marijuana Possession and Destruction

Text: At trial, Davis and James Pearson (“Pearson”) testified that on July 29, 2011, Marfo was driving them to New Jersey for the purpose of having Pearson open fraudulent bank accounts when they were stopped for speeding. At the time of the stop, Marfo was smoking marijuana, which he swallowed to avoid arrest. Marfo contends that the district court’s admission of Davis and Pearson’s testimony – that he possessed marijuana and destroyed evidence of such – violated Rule 404(b) and constitutes prejudicial plain error. We find that the district court did not err in admitting this evidence because it was intrinsic to the commission of an act in furtherance of the ongoing bank fraud scheme. The trip to New Jersey to open additional fraudulent bank accounts, as well as Marfo’s actions when confronted by the possibility of arrest, was intrinsic evidence because those acts “arose out of the same series of transactions as the charged offense, [and] . . . were necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.” 17 United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 327 (4th Cir. 2009) (admission of evidence relating to defendant’s prior drug use and sexual relationships was proper under Rule 404(b) to complete the story of the crime and to put relationships of parties in context). The evidence was also relevant to establishing the continuing relationship between Marfo and Davis after Callaway’s murder, and was thus probative of Marfo’s motive and participation in the murder conspiracy; after all, protecting Marfo’s scheme was the motive for the murder. See United States v. Smith, 441 F.3d 254, 262 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Evidence is necessary, even if it does not relate to an element of a charged offense, when it furnishes part of the context of the crime.” (quotation marks omitted)). Evidence of Marfo’s marijuana possession was also intrinsic to his use and possession of marijuana as a recruiting tool and method of payment in the bank fraud scheme. At trial, Andrew Styron (“Styron”) testified that Marfo recruited him to cash stolen money orders, open fraudulent accounts, and recruit others to do the same; that Marfo supplied marijuana to Styron’s friends as a way of forming relationships that led him to deposit stolen money orders or open fraudulent accounts for him; and that Marfo sometimes paid Styron with marijuana to drive him to apartment complexes in order to steal money orders. The evidence was further relevant to Pearson’s identification of 18 Marfo as the one who recruited him in relation to the bank fraud scheme. In any event, the challenged evidence would have satisfied Rule 404(b). That Marfo continued his involvement in the fraud scheme with Davis after Callaway’s murder was powerful evidence of his motive and participation in the murder scheme. Marfo’s challenge of Pearson’s identification of him also made evidence supporting that identification that much more relevant and necessary. See United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir. 2011) (cross-examination of government witnesses created a significant credibility issue). The district court thus did not err in admitting this evidence.