Court Opinion

ID: 9439275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:29:14.330383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:16.288146
License: Public Domain

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While I concur in the affirmance of King’s conviction and sentence, I do not agree the district court committed any error, harmless or otherwise, in admitting the knife.
The majority recognizes that “in cases where a defendant is charged with unlawful possession of something, evidence that he possessed the same or similar things at other times is often quite relevant to his knowledge and intent with regard to the crime charged.” Maj. Op. at 1100. Moreover, the majority acknowledges that “courts of appeals have ... held it within the discretion of the district court to admit evidence regarding similar acts of possession that suggest ‘repetitive involvement in the same kind of criminal activity’ even if they do not involve the same objects.” Maj. Op. at 1100-01 (quoting United States v. Lego, 855 F.2d 542, 546 (8th Cir.1988), and citing cases). Nevertheless, the majority concludes that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the knife because the knife was inadmissible under Rule 404(b). The majority emphasizes two points in finding error: first, the knife may or may not be a weapon and second, if a weapon, it is a legal one. Maj. Op. at 1101. I believe the first point is wrong and the second irrelevant.
The knife found in the trunk of King’s car has a nine-inch blade, see Trial Tr. at 157, and the blade includes four large barbs. See Appendix to Concurring Opinion. The dictionary describes a knife barb as “a sharp projection extending backwards ... preventing easy extraction from a wound.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 174 (1981). One of the arresting officers described the knife as “kind of like something out of prehistoric.” Trial Tr. at 129. It is quintessentially a weapon and, as the majority notes, a “vicious-looking” one at that. Maj. Op. at 1100.
The fact that a defendant is found in possession of two weapons makes it less likely that his possession of either is unknowing. Introduction of the second, albeit legally possessed, weapon into evidence, therefore, allows the jury to draw an inference that is not prohibited by Rule 404(b). We have consistently held that Rule 404(b) allows the admission of “other acts” to show, inter alia, knowledge or absence of accident. See, e.g., United States v. Bowie, 232 F.3d 923, 930 (D.C.Cir.2000); United States v. Crowder, 141 F.3d 1202, 1206 (D.C.Cir.1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1149, 119 S.Ct. 1049, 143 L.Ed.2d 55 (1999).
But the majority stresses that “a knife with a notched blade has many licit and indeed nonviolent uses.” Maj. Op. at 1101. This is true but, here, irrelevant. A gun too may have licit and nonviolent uses-e.g., skeet or other target shooting. But this case does not turn on whether “a” knife *1104has a use other than as a weapon but whether the knife found in King’s possession has such a use. In my view, the majority incorrectly characterizes the reason for the knife’s inadmissibility, stating that the jury would have had to improperly reason that “someone who has one object that could be used as a weapon is more likely to have another that is an undoubted weapon.” Maj. Op. at 1101 (emphasis added). Instead, the jury was allowed, correctly, to consider whether someone in whose possession one “undoubted” weapon is found is more likely to know of a second “undoubted” weapon found in his possession.*
Finally, it is well established that the district court’s decision to admit evidence, reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard, see Stevenson v. District of Columbia Metro. Police Dep't 248 F.3d 1187, 1190 (D.C.Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Clarke, 24 F.3d 257, 267 (D.C.Cir.1994)); United States v. Williams, 212 F.3d 1305, 1308-09 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1056, 121 S.Ct. 666, 148 L.Ed.2d 568 (2000); United States v. Smart, 98 F.3d 1379, 1386 (D.C.Cir.1996) (citing United States v. Salamanca, 990 F.2d 629, 637 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 928, 114 S.Ct. 337, 126 L.Ed.2d 281 (1993)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1128, 117 S.Ct. 1271, 137 L.Ed.2d 349 (1996), is “entitled to ‘much deference’ on review.” United States v. Ramsey, 165 F.3d 980, 984 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.) (quoting United States v. Lewis, 693 F.2d 189, 193 (D.C.Cir.1982)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 894, 120 S.Ct. 223, 145 L.Ed.2d 187 (1999). In view of the highly deferential standard, I cannot agree the district court abused its discretion in admitting the knife.
*1105Appendix to Concurring Opinion
Appendix for Appellant at A-13.
[[Image here]]

 In any event, assuming arguendo the knife could reasonably be described as something other than a weapon, the issue of the knife qua weapon would be for the jury to decide. In other words, whether or not the knife is a weapon the possession of which tends to malee more probable the knowing possession of the second weapon is a question of fact. On the other hand, a different object found in King's car trunk which could be used as a weapon (say, a tire iron) might be excludible under Rule 403 (jury confusion). Allowing the jury to decide whether or not the knife is a weapon would not, as the majority supposes, "eviscerate Rule 404(b) ...," Maj. Op. at 1101 n.*, because the jury would disregard the knife not "if it determines [it] is relevant only as to the defendant's character," id., but only if it determines it is not a weapon.