Opinion ID: 2675558
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tim Eschmann and Jim Goodwin

Text: Eschmann testified that he met Young through Young's online-dating profile on the internet website Adult Friend Finder in the fall of 2005. Eschmann testified that Young discussed divorcing Griesbauer. He dated Young on the evening before Griesbauer's murder, and Young gave him a birthday present. Additionally, he testified that Young had asked for his advice on how to best invest life insurance proceeds that she would soon receive. Goodwin testified to meeting Young one month after Griesbauer's death. He noted how they developed a sexual relationship, often spending weekends together. He also loaned her money, and he testified that Young requested that he list her as a beneficiary of a life insurance policy. Goodwin ended his relationship with Young after he discovered an email conversation between Young and Robbins that occurred after Griesbauer's murder where Robbins promised not to alert police to Griesbauer's death in return for sexual favors. -11- Young argues that the government introduced the testimony of these men to paint her in a bad light. She contends that the testimony was merely extrinsic evidence of Young's promiscuous character with other men during and immediately after her marriage to Griesbauer. The government argued at trial that the testimony is instead intrinsic because Young's dating profile and dating habits prove her discontent with Griesbauer and pursuit of companionship with other men. Furthermore, she discussed life insurance with each of them, further showing her motivation for killing Griesbauer. Rule 404(b) applies only to extrinsic, not intrinsic, evidence. United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir. 2006). Evidence of other wrongful conduct is considered intrinsic when it is offered for the purpose of providing the context in which the charged crime occurred. Id. Such evidence is admitted because the other crime evidence 'completes the story' or provides a 'total picture' of the charged crime. Id. (citation omitted). Evidence may be intrinsic if it 'explain[s] the circumstances of' [a] charged murder conspiracy. United States v. Hall, 604 F.3d 539, 544 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. McGuire, 45 F.3d 1177, 1188 (8th Cir. 1995)). Intrinsic evidence may help to fill the gaps in the jury's understanding of the crime charged. See Hall, 604 F.3d at 543–44. We have also determined that intrinsic evidence is inextricably intertwined as an integral part of the immediate context of the crime charged. United States v. Rolett, 151 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998) (quotation and citation omitted). Young argues that this language implies that intrinsic evidence must be necessary to an understanding of the current crime; without that evidence, the jury could not make sense of the crime charged. The government argues that intrinsic evidence need not be necessary to the jury's understanding of the issues, only that the evidence contribute to the narrative of the story. We agree with the government. Young seeks a standard that is incongruent with the more-inclusive standard articulated in Johnson and Hall. Consequently, intrinsic evidence includes both evidence that is inextricably -12- intertwined with the crime charged as well as evidence that merely completes the story or provides context to the charged crime. See Johnson, 463 F.3d at 808; Hall, 604 F.3d at 543–44. The government properly supported introduction of Eschmann's and Goodwin's testimonies. First, their testimonies show that Young actively sought another male companion although Griesbauer was still alive, indicating his disposability. Second, their testimonies demonstrate her preoccupation with realizing a financial return on her husbands' deaths with life insurance proceeds. Although their testimonies reflect poorly on Young, their testimonies nonetheless carry sufficient probative value relating to Young's motives for hiring Mock to murder Griesbauer. As a result, their testimonies are intrinsic because they complete the story surrounding the murders and go beyond mere propensity evidence. Consequently, the district court did not err in admitting Eschmann's and Goodwin's testimonies over Young's 404(b) objections because their testimonies provided intrinsic evidence of Young's offense.