Opinion ID: 787028
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Witness's Inconsistent Statement

Text: 28 A district court's decision regarding the admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gibson v. United States, 271 F.3d 247, 254 (6th Cir.2001). At trial, the defense called Bridgette Glover (Glover), Foster's ex-girlfriend, to testify about the events surrounding Foster's arrest, as she claimed to have witnessed them. She testified on direct examination that Foster was moving his things out of her apartment on the day of his arrest, as they had just ended their relationship. She further testified that she and her son helped Foster search for his cellular phone in the dumpster. When asked when she had last seen Foster driving the vehicle involved in the incident, she testified that she had not seen him driving it on the night in question, and that the last time she had seen him in it was on November 26, 2000. On cross-examination, Glover was asked about her testimony regarding the search for the phone and the car and was then impeached by a prior inconsistent statement she had made to police on January 4, 2001. In the prior statement, she said that she did not help Foster look for a cellular phone in the dumpster, and that she saw Foster driving the vehicle on the night of his arrest. 29 Glover was then asked if she had ever witnessed or had personal knowledge of Foster selling PCP. The defense objected, initially asserting that it was hearsay evidence, later adding a 404(b) basis for it. J.A. at 185 (Trial Tr.). Specifically, defense counsel stated: [I]f she knew he sold it a year ago, that would be in the nature of 404(b) evidence, would it not? It's not connected in time to this possession on this date. I just think it's highly prejudicial. J.A. at 185 (Trial Tr.). The following exchange took place: 30 Court: What about the 404(b)? It seems to me that's the only issue, because otherwise, if she knew something about it firsthand — 31 Defense: Well — 32 Court: — she could testify about it. 33 Defense: If they get by the first — 34 Court: But 404(b) — 35 Defense: — prong. 36 Prosecution: Well, your honor, I think that I would ask the Court to rule it is admissible. I think the probative value of this evidence, assuming it is forthcoming, is extremely high. We have a defendant here who is contesting — Court: I don't mean 403. I mean 404(b). The government is supposed to give notice generally with regards to — 37 Prosecution: Judge, this is not my witness. 38 Court: Okay. 39 Prosecution: Judge, I would contend that if this witness who was living with the defendant at this time will testify that she is aware of his PCP activity, it is certainly extremely probative to show intent, knowledge, absen[ce] of mistake or accident, which is the defendant's defense here. 40 Court: Okay. 41 ____ 42 Prosecution: We can voir dire her, Your Honor, if the Court wants to inquire first as to what personal knowledge she might have of the PCP. 43 Court: I think that really is the issue. As I look at it, Mr. Pyle [defense counsel], I'm looking under 404(b), it's the right section, but it isn't [the prosecution's] witness, and so the government does have the obligation in a criminal case to provide a reasonable notice in advance of trial, but in this circumstance, where it's not his witness and where there was no — she wasn't on the witness list at the time that we chose the jury, he could not have responsibility for having given advance notice when he didn't know the witness would ever be called.