Opinion ID: 748104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Grzesczuk's Other Employment in Telemarketing

Text: 15 Appellant Grzesczuk argues that the court should not have admitted evidence that Grzesczuk had worked in telemarketing both before and after his employment at SNN. While Grzesczuk does not cite the testimony to which he objects, presumably it is the testimony of Appellant Baggett, who stated that she had worked with Grzesczuk at Missing Children and U.S. Publishing. 16 This evidence was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 404(b) to show Grzesczuk's knowledge, intent, and lack of mistake. Evidence admitted under Rule 404(b) must: (1) be based on sufficient evidence; (2) be not too remote in time from charged crimes; (3) bear some similarity to charged acts; and (4) prove an essential element of the charged offense. United States v. Melvin, 91 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). 17 First, sufficient evidence supported the admission of Appellant Baggett's testimony, since it resulted from her personal knowledge. Baggett had worked with Grzesczuk at both telemarketing companies. Second, Grzesczuk's work at the companies was not overly remote in time. Baggett testified that she worked briefly at Missing Children immediately before working at SNN, and that she worked at U.S. Publishing for a short period of time immediately after working at SNN, thus indicating that Grzesczuk's employment at the two companies was close in time to his employment at SNN. Third, Grzesczuk's employment at Missing Children and U.S. Publishing was substantially similar to his work at SNN. All three were telemarketing companies which encouraged people to send money in exchange for a prize. Finally, Baggett's testimony helped prove intent, an essential element of the crime. It showed that Grzesczuk had a good deal of experience with telemarketing companies, and thus that he was more likely than a novice to know that the representations he made to victims while working at SNN were false. 18 Grzesczuk contends that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value. His argument is unpersuasive. The evidence was probative of his intent, knowledge, and lack of mistake. It was not unduly prejudicial, since it simply concerned Grzesczuk's previous work experience in telemarketing. 19