|
United States v. Beasley
809 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1987)
Facts: D, a biochemist, got a prescription form a
physician for some drugs by informing the physician that he was going to use the
drugs for some experiment. But according to the prosecution, D sold the drugs
for illegal use. Major part of prosecution was based on the testimony of a
convicted drug dealer and fearing that the jury might trust D, a reputable
biochemist, and not the drug dealer, prosecution introduced evidence of prior
drug dealings conducted by D.
Issue: Was the evidence of prior drug dealings of D
properly admitted here?
Holding: No
Rationale: There is a two part test to see if prior crime
evidence properly admitted under Rule 402(b): 1. it must be determined that the
extrinsic offense evidence is relevant to an issue other than the D’s
character. 2. The evidence must possess probative value that is not
substantially outweighed by the undue prejudice. Here the prosecution argues
that evidence showed a pattern. But pattern is not an exception and pattern
just shows that propensity of the D to commit the crime he is charged with,
which is strictly prohibited under the rule. Such evidence can be used to prove
intent, especially in this case where D claims that he bought the drugs to
conduct some scientific experiment. But the trial judge has to weigh the
benefits of the evidence for intent purposes against the danger of prejudice.
Here the trial judge completely failed to conduct such balancing test.
Therefore, the case is remanded.
Note: Evidence of other crimes may be admissible to
show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
|
