United States v. Smalls - 752 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2014)

Rule:

Under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for another purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. This rule is one of inclusion, rather than exclusion, unless the evidence is introduced for the impermissible purpose or is unduly prejudicial.

Facts:

After a suspicious death in a New Mexico prison cell, police eventually identified defendant Paul Smalls, the victim's cellmate, and two other men as the perpetrators of murder. Their scheme was to smother the victim, and then claim he died of an asthma attack. At trial, the government pointed to "signature quality" evidence that Smalls had threatened his asthmatic ex-wife in a similar fashion five months before the murder. Smalls and the other men were found guilty of the murder of Phil Gantz, who at the time was cooperating with federal and state authorities against members of a drug trafficking ring. Smalls appealed his conviction, arguing that he received a fundamentally unfair trial because (1) the district court erred in several of its evidentiary rulings, including allowing the testimony of his ex-wife about his prior statement; (2) the government committed prosecutorial misconduct; (3) the court abused its discretion in denying certain jury instructions; and (4) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. Smalls asserted that he was entitled to a new trial because the aggregate effect of these errors amounted to cumulative error.

Issue:

Did the district court err in admitting the challenged pieces of evidence? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The judgment was affirmed. The court held that evidence of defendant's domestic assault against his ex-wife was properly admitted because it bore a strong resemblance to the plan to kill the victim, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Moreover, the district court admitted only presumptively admissible information about defendant's prior convictions and determined that they were dissimilar enough from the murder charge, Fed. R Evid. 609. In conclusion, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions under 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 1512 and 1513.