Opinion ID: 160331
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion Under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)

Text: 44 Because Ms. Fuentez did not object to the statement on the basis of the limitation on character evidence included in Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), we review the district court's failure to exclude the evidence on that basis for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 76 F.3d 1145, 1150 (10th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, we will reverse a district court only if we determine that admitting the statement placed the underlying fairness of the entire trial in doubt or affected Ms. Fuentez's substantial rights. United States v. Hill, 60 F.3d 672, 675 (10th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Culpepper, 834 F.2d 879, 883 (10th Cir. 1987) (Under the plain error standard, reversal is mandated only to correct particularly egregious errors, that is, those errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of Judicial proceedings. (internal quotations omitted)). According to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b): 45 Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . . 46 The grounds specified for admissibility are not exclusive; evidence of other crimes or acts relevant to any issue at trial may be admitted unless this evidence tends to prove only criminal disposition. Culpepper, 834 F.2d at 883. 47 We addressed a nearly identical allegation of error in Hill, wherein the defendant failed to object on the basis of 404(b) to a statement that he was a drug dealer. Hill, 60 F.3d at 675. We held there was no plain error because the statement was an isolated remark in the context of the entire trial, the declarant was subject to examination, and the judge properly instructed the jury regarding the use of the testimony. See id. As in Hill, the statement was isolated within the context of the trial, Ms. Fuentez called Mr. Juarez, who made the statement, to testify, and the judge provided a proper limiting instruction. We hold that admitting the statement did not constitute reversible plain error. See id.