United States v. Crocker - 788 F.2d 802 (1st Cir. 1986)

Rule:

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The process of balancing, on the one side, the need for the other crimes evidence and its probative value in supporting an issue and on the other, the risk that its admission will result in unfair prejudice to the accused, is largely committed to the district court's sound discretion.

Facts:

Defendant James Crocker was convicted by a jury on one count of a two-count indictment for conspiring to commit bank theft, 18 U.S.C. Sections 371 and 2113(b), and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The conspiracy consisted of cashing counterfeit checks in various banks. On appeal, he contended that the district court erred in admitting evidence of a 1977 arrest, of co-conspirator acts prior to the existence of the conspiracy, of recorded telephone conversations between a conspirator who turned informant and other co-conspirators and of co-conspirator acts not in furtherance of the conspiracy. Defendant also attacked the sentence as retaliatory for having exercised his constitutional right to stand trial. On the other hand, the government argued that the evidence of the prior arrest was properly admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), that evidence of co-conspirators' acts occurring before and during the conspiracy was necessary to fully understand it and that the conspirators' recorded statements were properly admitted under the hearsay exception of Rule 801(d)(2)(E).

Issue:

1. Did the trial court improperly admit: (i) evidence of defendant’s prior arrest; (ii) statements made by defendant’s coconspirator; and (iii) evidence of the actions committed by defendant’s coconspirators? 
2. Should the sentence be vacated based on the defendant’s contention that the same was retaliatory? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the admission of evidence that related to defendant's prior arrest did not violate Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) because the trial court admitted the evidence after balancing its probative value against its potential prejudice. Furthermore, statements made by defendant's coconspirator were properly admitted as being made in furtherance of the conspiracy. In addition, the admission of certain acts committed by defendant's coconspirators was proper. However, the court vacated the sentence because the sentencing judge's comments on defendant's presentation of a frivolous case and waste of judicial resources raised a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness in the imposition of a harsher sentence.