Opinion ID: 590478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Evidence of Sagaille's Involvement in Prior Drug Transaction

Text: 7 First, Sagaille has argued that the district court erred in permitting Officer C.L. Patrick to testify that Sagaille was involved in a drug transaction some ten months prior to his arrest in the instant case. In the prior transaction, Sagaille was found in a house approximately 2 1/2 miles from the Kapp Street location in an attic in which various items of drug paraphernalia and drugs were concealed in the ceiling in a location and manner similar to the method employed to conceal drugs in the Kapp Street residence. The Government has contended that the evidence is admissible to show that Sagaille had the relevant state of mind and knowledge necessary to prove intent to distribute and constructive possession of the drugs at the Kapp Street residence. 8 Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the introduction into evidence of other relevant crimes, except those crimes which tend only to prove a general disposition to commit crime. Rule 404(b) provides that such evidence is admissible for purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We have held that such evidence is admissible when it is relevant to an issue other than character, and is necessary and reliable. See United States v. Mark, 943 F.2d 444, 447 (4th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, the admission of such evidence lies within the discretion of the trial court. Id. 9 In the instant case, Sagaille was charged with three counts of possession of drugs with the intent to distribute them. Because Sagaille did not own the residence on Kapp Street and because he did not reside there, the Government proceeded on a theory of constructive possession of the drugs. Therefore, the Government was required to show not only that Sagaille had the knowledge required to prove constructive possession, but also that Sagaille possessed the intent to distribute the drugs. 10 The district court determined that the evidence of Sagaille's involvement in the prior drug transaction was relevant and probative to the issue of Sagaille's state of mind, willfulness, and knowledge. Furthermore, the district court expressly limited the jury's ability to consider the evidence, carefully instructed the jury as to the purposes for which the evidence was admitted and informed the jury that the evidence was not to be considered for the purpose of showing that Sagaille was a bad person and therefore likely to have committed the crimes with which he is charged.... 11 We review the district court's decision to permit evidence under Rule 404(b) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Fells, 920 F.2d 1179, 1181 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2831 (1991). Under the circumstances of the instant case and in light of the limiting instructions, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the jury to hear evidence about Sagaille's prior drug transaction.