Opinion ID: 146169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Evidence About Phaknikone's MySpace Account Was Inadmissible Character Evidence, but Its Admission Was Harmless.

Text: Phaknikone argues that the evidence about his MySpace account was inadmissible because it was evidence of a bad character that was offered for no purpose other than to show action in conformity therewith. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The government responds that the evidence was admissible to prove identity or, in the alternative, that any error was harmless. We agree with Phaknikone that the photographs were inadmissible character evidence, but we agree with the alternative argument of the government that the error was harmless. We employ a three-part test to determine whether a district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): First, the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant's character. Second, as part of the relevance analysis, there must be sufficient proof so that a jury could find that the defendant committed the extrinsic act. United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535, 1538 (11th Cir.1992) (en banc) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 901 n. 1 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc). Third, the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by its undue prejudice, and the evidence must meet the other requirements of Rule 403. Miller, 959 F.2d at 1538. 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. Beechum, 582 F.2d at 901 n. 1. Our application of this test to evidence introduced under Rule 404(b) var[ies] depending on the issue for which it was offered. United States v. Lail, 846 F.2d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir.1988). Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion . . . [and] 404(b) evidence, like other relevant evidence, should not lightly be excluded when it is central to the prosecution's case. United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The government argues that it introduced the MySpace evidence to prove identity, that is, that Phaknikone robbed the banks, but evidence offered to prove identity must satisfy a particularly stringent analysis. United States v. Jones, 28 F.3d 1574, 1580 (11th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted), rev'd on other grounds, 516 U.S. 1022, 116 S.Ct. 663, 133 L.Ed.2d 515 (1995); United States v. Stubbins, 877 F.2d 42, 44 (11th Cir.1989); Lail, 846 F.2d at 1301. When extrinsic offense evidence is introduced to prove identity, `the likeness of the offenses is the crucial consideration. The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused. In other words, the evidence must demonstrate a modus operandi.' Miller, 959 F.2d at 1539 (quoting Beechum, 582 F.2d at 912 n. 15); see also United States v. Cardenas, 895 F.2d 1338, 1342 (11th Cir.1990). The extrinsic act must be a `signature' crime, and the defendant must have used a modus operandi that is uniquely his. Miller, 959 F.2d at 1540 (Kravitch, J., concurring). The signature trait requirement is imposed to insure that the government is not relying on an inference based on mere characterthat a defendant has a propensity for criminal behavior. Jones, 28 F.3d at 1580. Evidence cannot be used to prove identity `simply because [the defendant] has at other times committed the same commonplace variety of criminal act.' Id. (quoting 2 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 404[16], at 404-101 (1992)). The government argued at trial that Phaknikone robbed the banks like a gangster, and on appeal the government continues to press the argument that the MySpace evidence proves this so-called modus operandi. In its brief to us, the government argues that it offered the evidence to prove that someone who shows off a gun in his car would commit the seven bank robberies: The MySpace evidence therefore properly was admitted for the jury to consider in determining the identity of the defendant as the masked, semiautomatic hand gun wielding, gangster-imitating, profane-language-speaking bank robber described by the victims and eyewitnesses of the robberies. This argument fails. The MySpace evidence fails the first part of the Miller test. The MySpace evidence is not evidence of identity: that is, evidence that Phaknikone robbed banks like a gangster. The subscriber report proved nothing more than Phaknikone's nickname, the only name by which Lavivong had already testified he knew Phaknikone. The profile photographs accompanying the subscriber report and the photograph of Phaknikone and his ex-wife at a social event offer nothing to support a modus operandi about the bank robberies. The photograph of a tattooed Phaknikone, his face completely visible, in a car, holding a handgun sideways in his right hand, and with a child as a passenger, proves only that Phaknikone, on an earlier occasion, possessed a handgun in the presence of a child. Although the photograph may portray a gangster-type personality, the photograph does not evidence the modus operandi of a bank robber who commits his crimes with a signature trait. The MySpace evidence is not evidence of a modus operandi and is inadmissible to prove identity. Because the MySpace evidence fails the first requirement of the Miller test, we need not address its second and third requirements. The MySpace evidence is classic evidence of bad character, which was offered by the government to prove only action in conformity therewith. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The government wanted the jury to infer that, because Phaknikone is willing to publish these kinds of photographs online, under an incendiary alias, he is a gangster who is likely to rob banks. The district court abused its discretion by admitting the MySpace evidence. Whether the admission of the MySpace evidence was harmless is another question. The government bears the burden of establishing that an error is harmless. United States v. Sweat, 555 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.2009). Reversal is warranted only if [the error] resulted `in actual prejudice because it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.' United States v. Guzman, 167 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449, 106 S.Ct. 725, 732, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986)). We view the entire record to resolve this question. United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1315 (11th Cir.2004). Overwhelming evidence of guilt is one factor that may be considered in finding harmless error. Guzman, 167 F.3d at 1353. The error of admitting the MySpace evidence is harmless. We cannot say that the MySpace evidence had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury. The record contains overwhelming evidence of Phaknikone's guilt. The government presented ample evidence that tied Phaknikone to each of the seven robberies charged in the indictment, including Phaknikone's confession to four of the robberies. Phaknikone confessed to Agents Johnson and Rambaud that he robbed the Wachovia Bank in Suwanee on April 6, 2007, and his lawyers conceded guilt on this count at trial. Phaknikone told the tellers not to give him the ink thing. Lavivong testified that he and Phaknikone robbed this bank together. Phaknikone also confessed to Agents Johnson and Rambaud that he robbed the Wachovia Bank in Duluth on March 9, 2007, but that a dye pack exploded and he was unable to keep the money. The government corroborated this confession by presenting evidence that all the money from this robbery was found at the scene, marked by dye. A forensic examiner testified that shoe prints lifted from the bank correspond[ed] in design and physical size to the black athletic shoes Phaknikone was wearing at the time of his arrest. Surveillance photographs taken from the bank corroborated that the robber wore black athletic shoes. For the robbery of the Hometown Community Bank in Braselton on February 15, 2007, the government proved that the robber wore the same kind of white hooded sweatshirt, with the word Eck&omacr; stitched on the front in gold letters, that Phaknikone was wearing when he was apprehended. A bank teller testified that earlier on the day of the robbery, a man shorter than five-foot-seven, with a tattoo on his left neck, surveilled the bank. The teller testified that the tattoo on Phaknikone's neck matched the one she remembered seeing on the man in the bank. Investigators obtained shoe prints from the crime scene identical in physical size and design with the black athletic shoes seized from Phaknikone after his arrest, and surveillance photographs taken from the bank confirmed that the robber wore black athletic shoes. For the robbery of the People's Bank in Braselton on January 31, 2007, the government proved, with surveillance photographs, that the robber wore the same kind of hooded sweatshirt, with a gold left arm, black right arm, white front and back, and a black, gold, and white hood, worn by the robber of the Wachovia Bank in Duluth on March 9, a robbery that Phaknikone had confessed he committed. The head teller at the People's Bank testified that she saw a man with a tattoo on the left side of his neck enter the bank in the week before the robbery, and the branch manager testified that the man's eyes matched the eyes of the robber. Surveillance photographs also showed the robber wearing black shoes, and a shoe print on the teller counter matched the design and physical size of Phaknikone's black athletic shoes. The robber instructed the tellers not to give him any dye packs or bait money. Phaknikone also confessed to Agents Johnson and Rambaud that he robbed the Wachovia Bank in Lawrenceville on January 11, 2007. In his confession, Phaknikone stated that he stole approximately $14,000; in fact, $14,324 was stolen. Cynthia Myers, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, executed a search warrant at Phaknikone's home and found in his closet a black, zip-down hooded sweatshirt, with four orange, yellow, and white stripes and the word Enyce stitched on the front, that was identical with the sweatshirt worn by one of the robbers in surveillance photographs taken from the bank. Phaknikone also confessed to Agents Johnson and Rambaud that he robbed the First Bank of the South in Lawrenceville on December 19, 2006, and that he fled in a stolen Toyota car that he later abandoned in a trailer park. Within one hour of the robbery, authorities found a stolen Toyota car abandoned in that trailer park. The branch manager of the bank testified at trial that she saw the robber before he put on his ski mask, and she identified Phaknikone as the robber. Surveillance photographs showed the robber wearing black shoes, and a shoe print pulled from the bank matched the design and physical size of Phaknikone's black athletic shoes. For the robbery of the Bank of America in Lilburn on November 21, 2006, the government proved, with surveillance photographs, that the robber wore black shoes. A shoe print on the teller counter matched the design and physical size of Phaknikone's black athletic shoes. A teller testified that the robber instructed the tellers not to give him any funny money. The government also presented evidence that eyewitnesses described the robber as black or Asian, and the day before the robbery, a man of Phaknikone's size and description, who had a tattoo on his neck, came into the bank to inquire about opening an account. Although we have explained that the MySpace evidence does not evince a modus operandi, the government introduced other evidence that the robberies were committed in a like manner. The robberies all were committed within a radius of 40 miles. Eyewitnesses to each robbery testified that the robbers wore black ski masks, waved handguns while shouting profanities, and one robber always jumped the teller counter. Other evidence established that the robbers always wore white-topped gloves and hooded sweatshirts and one robber always carried a semi-automatic handgun sideways in his left hand. Each robbery lasted less than three minutes, and in three of the robberies, a robber instructed a teller not to place a dye pack with the money. Phaknikone does not contest on appeal that this conduct established a modus operandi, and he does not contest that the jury was entitled to find that he committed each of the related robberies. Viewed in its totality, the evidence of Phaknikone's guilt is overwhelming, and there is no reason to think that the error of admitting the MySpace evidence had a substantial or injurious effect in influencing the jury.