United States v. Camejo - 929 F.2d 610 (11th Cir. 1991)

Rule:

Evidence of good conduct is not admissible to negate criminal intent.

Facts:

The case involved employees of Eastern Airlines. Charges were brought against all of the known participants: Count 1 for the importation of cocaine and Count 2 for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Guilty pleas were entered by 12 co-defendants. Three co-defendants were acquitted. Anchia, Camejo and Rivera-Torres were found guilty of both counts. Smith and Setien were found guilty of conspiracy to import. They appealed. Setien's witness Max Mermelstein made a proffer of his testimony outside the presence of the jury. He testified that during the period that Setien was accused of having been involved in the cocaine importation conspiracy, they met regularly as social friends. Setien refused to involve himself in the narcotics business and repeatedly reminded Mermelstein  of the damage he was doing to society. The government filed a motion in limine objecting to Mermelstein's proffered testimony, on the ground that individual acts of good conduct cannot be permitted to demonstrate good character. Setien argued that one of the essential elements of the offense charged was his mens rea during the time he was alleged to have agreed to join this conspiracy, and that Mermelstein's offer was relevant to show he was offered an opportunity to do the same thing and refused. The court ruled that the testimony was irrelevant under Rule 405(b) and was not admissible under Rule 404(b). 

Issue:

Was evidence of good conduct by a defendant admissible to negate his criminal intent?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed all the convictions, holding that evidence of good conduct by a defendant was not admissible to negate his criminal intent. The court held that the jury could have reasonably inferred that that defendant's action in supervising his crew as it unloaded contraband and in acting as a lookout were knowing and intentional acts of participating in the conspiracy. The court held that one defendant's argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to exclude testimony of his financial status was without merit because there was no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction. The court held that the district court's denial of a defendant's severance motion was proper because that defendant failed to prove that he received an unfair trial and suffered compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to afford protection.