Opinion ID: 689629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Arrest and Conviction

Text: 10 During trial, the district court permitted the government to introduce evidence that defendant had been previously convicted of drug trafficking in state court and had been arrested for the possession of a handgun, a charge for which he was later acquitted. 11 Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits the introduction of evidence relating to other crimes or acts if they show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Such evidence is not appropriate, however, to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The district court enjoys discretion when determining whether other acts evidence is more probative than prejudicial. United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186, 1190 (6th Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Gessa, 971 F.2d 1257, 1262 (6th Cir.1992) (en banc)). 12 During trial, defendant explained that he was an innocent passenger in the van. According to his testimony, he had merely flagged down a ride from an acquaintance and found himself caught up in events. In light of this explanation, the Rule 404(b) material assumes probative value insofar as it rebuts defendant's contention that he was the victim of an innocent mistake. 1 See United States v. Acosta-Cazares, 878 F.2d 945, 949-50 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 899 (1989).