Opinion ID: 199888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cossia's Testimony Concerning the Gun

Text: 39 Taylor made a timely objection to evidence that he had a gun during the April 17, 1999, transaction. He claims that the court erred in admitting the evidence under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 and further takes issue with the court's instructions following the testimony on this issue. Since Taylor objected to the court's rulings, our review of whether to admit the evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b) is for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Houle, 237 F.3d 71, 77-78 (1st Cir.2001), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1074, 121 S.Ct. 2234, 150 L.Ed.2d 224 (2001). United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212, 217 (1st Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 853, 117 S.Ct. 147, 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996). We find that there was no error here. 40 Cossia's testimony concerning the gun was not inadmissible evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b). There was nothing other about it. The testimony was part and parcel of the charged transactions. The jury surely could have found that Taylor carried the gun to protect the drugs he was selling and the cash he was receiving. Moreover, given the timing of Taylor's gesture — showing the gun after discussing whether Cossia was working for law enforcement — his actions could be seen as reflecting his efforts to avoid police detection and thus his consciousness of his own guilt. See, e.g., United States v. Shea, 159 F.3d 37, 39-40 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1077, 119 S.Ct. 1480, 143 L.Ed.2d 563 (1999) (handgun was relevant, intrinsic evidence of crime and thus was not Rule 404(b) evidence at all). 41 Nor was this evidence excludable under Rule 403. Rule 403 is directed to unfair prejudice to the defendant, the possibility that the jury will draw inferences that were not warranted by the evidence or permitted by the Rules. In any event, the court's cautionary instructions were appropriate and addressed any such risk: 42 I'd just like to mention, ladies and gentlemen, there's no — the Defendants are not charged with possessing a firearm or a gun. The only bearing this would have on anything at all is whether it helps you in determining ... whether they're guilty [of the crimes] with which they have been charged, which is conspiracy to deliver crack cocaine and delivery of crack cocaine. Aside from that, this has no significance. 43 See, e.g., Shea, 159 F.3d at 40 (upholding admission of gun under Rule 403 based in part on cautionary instruction); United States v. Hahn, 17 F.3d 502, 509 (1st Cir. 1994) (same).