Opinion ID: 795652
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Luna's Prior Conviction

Text: 11 Luna argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his eleven-year-old prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The district court admitted the conviction under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence but gave a limiting instruction that the jurors may consider this evidence only to prove knowledge and intent, not whether Luna was guilty of the charged offense. We reverse a district court's admission of evidence under Rule 404(b) only when such evidence clearly had no bearing on the case and was introduced solely to prove the defendant's propensity to commit criminal acts. United States v. Thomas, 398 F.3d 1058, 1062 (8th Cir.2005) (quotation omitted). 12 We have frequently upheld the admission of prior drug convictions to show knowledge and intent when the defendant denied the charged drug offense. See, e.g., United States v. Foster, 344 F.3d 799, 801-02 (8th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1031, 124 S.Ct. 2096, 158 L.Ed.2d 713 (2004). Without citing Eighth Circuit precedent, Luna argues that his prior conviction was too remote in time. In this circuit, time is a relevant factor, but the remoteness standard is reasonableness, not an absolute number of years. Here, as in United States v. Love, 419 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir.2005), it was well within the district court's discretion to rule that this very similar prior conviction was not overly remote, and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 13 The judgments of the district court are affirmed.