Court Opinion

ID: 9463478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:08:30.058309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:08.573102
License: Public Domain

LAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Evidence of the sequence of events in the drug store which preceded the defendant’s arrest was clearly admissible as relevant circumstances surrounding the proof that the defendant allegedly possessed the weapon as claimed by the government.
However this does not sanction a lay witness’ opinion that the defendant had “forged a narcotic prescription” or that he had in fact committed a felony. This testimony was highly irregular and prejudicial. Defense counsel timely objected and gave notice to the trial judge what might occur, and the judge should have limited the witness to a statement of facts. The witness should have been permitted to state simply that the prescription was irregular or improper in appearance and that this precipitated his conduct. His statements that the defendant had forged a prescription to obtain narcotics or was guilty of a felony were not factually demonstrated.
Fed.R.Evid. 403 reads:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
In today’s society there can be nothing more prejudicial to a defendant in a criminal case than to suggest he is some way mixed up with narcotics. The defendant was indicted and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. The government should be restricted to proof of that crime without an inflammatory suggestion of some other bizarre, unproven crime involving narcotics. The defendant was denied a fair trial and deserves a new one.