Court Opinion

ID: 9836745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:56.359876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.727844
License: Public Domain

EFFRON, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
I agree with the principal opinion’s treatment of Issue I.
Issue II, as framed by appellant, is a facial challenge to Rule 413. I agree that the constitutionality of Rule 413 may be' sustained by applying “the safeguards embodied in Rule 403[.]” United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427, 1433 (10th Cir.1998); see also id. (setting forth specific factors that must be considered under Rule 403 in a sexual assault case); and United States v. Guardia, 135 F.3d 1326, 1331 (10th Cir.1998) (although the trial court is not required to make detailed findings of fact under Rule 403, it is important that the court “fully evaluate the proffered Rule 413 evidence and make a clear record of the reasoning behind its findings”).