Court Opinion

ID: 995031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:31:30.578035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:20.916082
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4723

LINDA THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(CR-95-493-AW)

Submitted: April 30, 1998

Decided: May 20, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michele A. Ferris-Hansen, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne
A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Stuart A. Berman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Linda Thompson was convicted by a jury of one count
each of conspiracy to commit postal robbery (18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994))
and aiding and abetting in the robbery of a post office (18 U.S.C.
§ 2114 (1994)). On appeal she alleges that the district court erred by
admitting too much evidence concerning her addiction to heroin and
that this excess evidence prejudiced the jury. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.

Thompson worked at the Lanham, Maryland, post office. By the
summer and early fall of 1994, she was addicted to heroin, deeply in
debt, and close to losing her job. The record discloses that Thompson
used the drug nearly every day and that her habit cost $40-$60 per
day, or approximately $1500 per month.1 Thompson frequently vis-
ited a known drug area in Washington, D.C., to buy and use heroin.
Thompson eventually became close friends with another heroin addict
named Anthony "Pee Wee" McDonald ("McDonald"). Thompson and
McDonald often used heroin together, and McDonald occasionally
bought heroin for Thompson when she could not afford to purchase
it herself.

In September 1994, Thompson approached McDonald, who she
knew was a convicted robber, and asked him if he was interested in
robbing the post office where she worked. Thompson brought
McDonald into the employee area of the post office, showed him the
layout, and told him when and where the truck would arrive to pick
up the day's receipts. Thompson also suggested that the robbery occur
on a Saturday when fewer people would be around. McDonald and
_________________________________________________________________
1 At the time, Thompson's take-home pay was approximately $2200
per month, and the Government presented evidence showing that her
non-drug expenses exceeded this amount.

                    2
two other accomplices robbed the post office the next month, entering
through the employee entrance. Police eventually apprehended
McDonald, and he confessed to the crime and implicated the other
conspirators.2

At trial, the Government presented evidence concerning Thomp-
son's drug addiction under two theories. First, the Government sought
to place the crime in context by establishing Thompson's relationship
with McDonald. Second, the Government wanted to show that
Thompson was in great financial distress, which it asserted provided
a motive for committing the charged offenses. The defense made a
motion in limine to limit the amount of evidence presented, but the
district court denied the motion.

We review the district court's decision to admit evidence concern-
ing Thompson's drug addiction for abuse of discretion, and we will
not reverse that decision unless it was "arbitrary and irrational." See
United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83, 87 (4th Cir. 1996). Because we find
that the evidence was properly admitted under both of the Govern-
ment's theories, we find no such abuse here.3

While Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) generally prohibits the use of prior bad
acts as evidence against an accused, that prohibition does not apply
when the other criminal acts are "inextricably intertwined" or "were
necessary preliminaries" to the charged offenses. Chin, 83 F.3d at 88.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that it was necessary to
explore the extent of Thompson's relationship with McDonald to
show that she was the one who provided the inside information which
allowed McDonald to rob the post office in the manner in which it
was robbed. Moreover, even if Rule 404(b) governed the evidence in
question, we find that the district court properly applied the test set
forth in United States v. Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244 (4th Cir. 1988), and
found that the challenged evidence was relevant to an issue other than
_________________________________________________________________
2 McDonald testified against Thompson at her trial.
3 We note that Thompson does not challenge the Government's right to
introduce evidence of her drug addiction; in fact, she offered at trial to
stipulate that she was a heroin addict. Rather, Thompson alleges that at
some unspecified point in the trial the Government presented too much
evidence on this issue and that she was prejudiced thereby.

                    3
character (namely, Thompson's motive for committing the offenses),
was necessary and reliable, and that its probative value outweighed
the danger of unfair prejudice.

We therefore affirm Thompson's convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    4