Opinion ID: 2976626
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assaults on Hughes

Text: The district court allowed Morales and then Hughes to testify, over defense counsel’s objection, that the defendant assaulted and kicked Hughes on June 4, 2005. Hughes also testified that the defendant had assaulted her and threatened her and her family when she said she wanted to leave him on May 15, 2005. The government argued, and the district court found, that evidence of these assaults was part of the res gestae. To come within this exception to Rule 404(b), the evidence must “consis[t] of those other acts that are inextricably intertwined with the charged offense or those acts, the telling of which is necessary to complete the story of the charged offense.” Hardy, 228 F.3d at 748. The court explained in Hardy that: No. 06-4333 11 Proper background evidence has a causal, temporal, or spatial connection with the charged offense. Typically, such evidence is a prelude to the charged offense, is directly probative of the charged offense, arises from the same events as the charged offense, forms an integral part of a witness’s testimony, or completes the story of the charged offense. Id. Had defendant not asserted a necessity defense, putting at issue the events that preceded his possession of the firearm would not have been admissible as background evidence. The testimony regarding the assaults on June 4 and May 15 was connected to the offense and was integral to Morales’s testimony. It explained why, according to Morales, defendant was so upset when he returned to the apartment. It also explained why Hughes did not tell him that she was leaving him, and why Morales claimed to have been afraid for her life when she called the police. Evidence concerning these assaults was properly admitted as background evidence because of its connection to the charged offense and because it completes the story of the charged offense.