Opinion ID: 2966424
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Murder Testimony

Text: under Rules 404(b) and 403 We generally review the district court's decision to admit evidence of bad acts under Rules 404(b) and 403 for abuse of discretion. Cook v. American Steamship Co., 53 F.2d 733, 742 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Mark, 943 F.2d 444, 447 (4th Cir. 1991). Rule 404(b) decisions are not reversed unless they are arbitrary and irrational. United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464-65 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 784 (1996). Where a party, however, fails to object to the admission of evidence, Rule 103(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that we review the admission for plain error. Cook, 53 F.3d at 742; United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 1304, 1308 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Fed.R.Evid. 103(d). As previously explained, the jury watched video tapes of the drug deal as well as listened to audio recordings. Transcripts of the audio recordings were admitted into evidence for the jury to review. In addition to the transcripts, an agent testified as to what the tapes contained. Chin has contended that certain testimony of the agent summarizing and explaining what transpired in the tape played to the jury violated Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the challenged testimony the agent related what was occurring on the tapes during the drug transaction. At one point, the agent described what he and Chin were then discussing. He testified that Chin had indicated that he engaged in murder-for-hire and claimed that his people were responsible for a particular murder. Chin's first contention is that Rule 404(b)'s exclusion of evidence of other crimes introduced to demonstrate bad character precluded the 5 testimony.4 Second, even if the testimony was admissible under one of Rule 404(b)'s limited exceptions, he has argued that the testimony violated Rule 403's mandate that its probative value should not be outweighed by unfair prejudice.5 Chin failed to preserve properly his objection to the contested testimony by making a timely objection . . . stating the specific ground of the objection as required by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1). When the prosecutor asked if the agent testifying knew the name of the individual whom Chin's people had allegedly killed, the district judge interrupted and asked [w]hat difference does it make? Only then did Chin's counsel object on the grounds of relevance. When the prosecutor explained the relevance and continued with his questioning, Chin's counsel did not renew his objection or raise any other grounds for his objection. Thus, Chin's counsel never obtained a ruling from the district judge on whether the testi- mony was relevant, much less admissible under Rules 404(b) and 403. We, therefore, review the admission of the murder testimony for plain error. _________________________________________________________________ 4 Rule 404(b) provides that: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. 5 Rule 403 provides that [a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. 6
We find that there was no plain error as to Rule 404(b) because Rule 404(b)'s exclusion of bad acts does not pertain to the contested testimony. The majority of circuits have held that Rule 404(b) applies only to limits on the admission of other acts extrinsic to the one charged. Under that rule, acts intrinsic to the alleged crime do not fall under Rule 404(b)'s limitations on admissible evidence. United States v. Barnes, 49 F.3d 1144, 1149 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Lambert, 995 F.2d 1006, 1007 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 333 (1993); United States v. Allen , 960 F.2d 1055, 1058 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 881 (1992); United States v. Roberts, 933 F.2d 517, 520 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 825 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Foster, 889 F.2d 1049, 1054-55 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 (1989). While the Fourth Circuit has not explicitly stated, as a general matter, that Rule 404(b) does not apply to intrinsic acts, we have indicated that we agree with much of the reasoning behind the rule. See, e.g., United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.2d 876 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that Rule 404(b) is not applicable to evidence of crimes that arose out of the same series of transactions as the charged offense or that are necessary to complete story of the charged crime); United States v. Dozie, 27 F.3d 95, 96-97 (4th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (holding that Rule 404(b) was not applicable to evidence of dismissed counts, which had alleged the filing of fraudulent insurance claims, that fell within same time period of charged conspiracy to commit mail fraud); see also Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) advisory committee's note on a 1991 amendment (recognizing distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic evidence). We agree with the other circuits that where testimony is admitted as to acts intrinsic to the crime charged, and is not admitted solely to demonstrate bad character, it is admissible. Allen , 960 F.2d at 1058. Other criminal acts are intrinsic when they areinextricably intertwined or both acts are part of a single criminal episode or the other acts were necessary preliminaries to the crime charged. Lambert, 995 F.2d at 1007. The testimony about contract murder fits into the intrinsic category of evidence. The statements regarding murder were made during an exchange of heroin for cash. Thus, it was an intrinsic part of a drug deal and the witness' account of the context and circum- 7 stances surrounding the deal. See, e.g. , Allen, 960 F.2d at 1058. Indeed, Chin does not object to the transcript of his discussion with the agent. He only objects to the agent's testimony describing the conversation. Furthermore, the testimony was not admitted solely to demonstrate Chin's bad character. Killing people was an integral part of Chin's criminal enterprise, including his heroin business, and the threat of killing viewed as necessary to ensure deals were completed without problems arising. As one of the agents testified, Chin's prior threat to kill the shop owner was in keeping with the nature of the heroin business. In summary, the challenged testimony emphasized the violent and dangerous context of a heroin deal, and was inextricably intertwined with Chin's crime of selling heroin and conducting an ongoing criminal enterprise. Thus, Rule 404(b) does not apply to the challenged testimony.
Evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) must still meet Rule 403's requirement that its prejudicial value not outweigh its probative value. Lambert, 995 F.2d at 1008. Because of Chin's failure to object on Rule 403 grounds, we review the admission of the testimony for plain error. Evidence of a murder not charged is extremely prejudicial. However, as explained, the murder demonstrated the extent to which Chin was willing to go, or at least threaten, in order to ensure that the heroin deal and any future deals went smoothly. The murder business Chin implied was part-and-parcel of his criminal enterprise. Prior testimony regarding Chin's threat to kill the shop owner bolstered the relevance of murder and murder threats to Chin's heroin business. Furthermore, any error was at most harmless error. The evidence of Chin's guilt provided in government videotapes and audio recordings was overwhelming. For the foregoing reasons, we find no plain error.6 _________________________________________________________________ 6 At oral argument, Chin's counsel also argued that the agent's testimony misdescribed what was actually in the transcripts. The transcripts were in evidence, thus the jury could judge for itself if there were any discrepancies. Furthermore, counsel made no objections on that basis at trial. 8