Opinion ID: 2777568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bad Act Admissible for Proper Purpose

Text: The second Rule 404(b) determination the district court must make is that the prior bad act is admissible for a proper purpose. “Evidence of a crime, wrong or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). In other words, to be admissible for a 7 No. 13-2287 proper purpose, the prior act must be probative of a material issue other than character. United States v. Carney, 387 F.3d 436, 451 (6th Cir. 2004). “Evidence of other acts is probative of a material issue other than character if (1) the evidence is offered for an admissible purpose, (2) the purpose for which the evidence is offered is material or ‘in issue,’ and (3) the evidence is probative with regard to the purpose for which it is offered.” United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928, 937 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 720 (6th Cir. 2002)). In this case, the district court properly concluded that the conviction was offered for an admissible purpose that was in issue. The government offered Richardson’s prior distribution conviction for the purpose of proving his intent to distribute crack in this case, and Rule 404(b) expressly permits prior bad act evidence to be used to prove intent. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). As to the second point, both parties readily admit that Richardson’s intent was the central issue at trial. Where the district court erred was in finding that Richardson’s prior distribution was probative of his intent to distribute in this case. Generally, “where the crime charged is one requiring specific intent, the prosecutor may use 404(b) evidence to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent.” United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186, 1192 (6th Cir. 1994). In the context of drug distribution cases, this Court has stated time and again that prior distribution evidence can be admissible to show intent to distribute. See, e.g., United States v. Ayoub, 498 F.3d 532, 548 (6th Cir. 2007). Such evidence is admissible where “the past and present crime are related by being part of the same scheme of drug distribution or by having the same modus operandi.” Bell, 516 F.3d at 443. Such a relationship is required because “[t]he only way to reach the conclusion that the person currently has the intent to possess and distribute based solely on evidence of unrelated prior convictions for drug distribution is by employing the very 8 No. 13-2287 kind of reasoning—i.e., once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer—which 404(b) excludes.” Id. at 444 (emphasis in original). The government’s closing argument in the instant case showcases the inevitability of this chain of inference. “One thing I don’t want to forget to mention in the closing is the fact of defendant’s prior conviction for distribution. It’s only important to show intent here. You can’t consider it for anything else, only for his intent.” [R. 55, Tr. Jury Trial III, PGID 639.] There was no testimony on the facts underpinning Richardson’s prior conviction, and the record submitted to the jury only indicates that Richardson was convicted of two counts of distribution of crack cocaine. Without more, it is difficult to see how the fact that Richardson was convicted for distribution in 1998 is probative of his intent to distribute some thirteen years later. Under these circumstances, it is incredible to claim that the jury properly considered the evidence “only for his intent” and did not engage in propensity reasoning. The government now offers a chain of inferences (one it did not argue to the district court and it appears the district court never considered)—“that the defendant previously distributed drugs makes it more likely that distributing drugs is something he knows how to do; that distributing drugs is something the defendant knows how to do makes it more likely that the drugs he now possesses are drugs that he intends to distribute”—that is equally unavailing. [Docket No. 36, Br. for the United States, § I.B.1.] Without more—i.e., facts indicating that the two crimes are part of the scheme, that the defendant is using the same modus operandi, or that the factual context is otherwise similar—the only way the bad act would be probative “is if the jury were permitted to infer that because [Richardson] has distributed drugs in the past, it is likely that he was doing so in the present case.” Bell, 516 F.3d at 445. 9 No. 13-2287 At trial, the government offered no evidence that Richardson’s present crime was part of the same scheme or utilized the same modus operandi of his then fifteen-year-old conviction for drug distribution. Consequently, the conviction was not probative of Richardson’s intent to possess and distribute drugs in the instant case, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.3