Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 

Supreme Court of the United States

1988

Chapter

3

Title

Evidence A Contemporary Approach

Page

63

Topic

Relevance - A Primer

Quick Notes

o         The threshold question a court must make before admitting similar act evidence under Rule 404(b) is whether that evidence is probative of a material issue other than character.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether petitioner knew they were stolen?  Yes, a reasonable jury could make a conditioned fact.

o         Whether the trial court must make a preliminary finding before similar act and other Rule 404(b) evidence is submitted to the jury?  No, but the court ask the threshold question whether the evidence is probative of a material issue other than character.

Procedure

Trial

o         Jury convicted on the possession count only

Appellant

o         United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, affirming his conviction

Supreme

o         Affirmed.

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl Huddleston (Petitioner)

Df United States

Party Description

o         Petitioner is Guy Rufus Huddleston,

o         Charged with one count of selling stolen goods in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. 2315, and one count of possessing stolen property in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. 659.

o         The two counts related to two portions of a shipment of stolen Memorex video cassette tapes that petitioner was alleged to have possessed and sold, knowing that they were stolen.

 Memorex Tapes

o         32,000 blank Memorex video cassette tapes was stolen from the Overnight Express yard in South Holland, Illinois

Seeking Assistance & Assured Curry

o         The Petition seeking her assistance in selling a large number of blank Memorex video cassette tapes.

o         After assuring Curry that the tapes were not stolen,

o         Petitioner delivered to the various purchasers -- who apparently believed the sales were legitimate.

Tapes were stolen

o         There was no dispute that the tapes which petitioner sold were stolen

See Issue

The only material issue at trial was whether petitioner knew they were stolen.

District Court

o         The District Court allowed the Government to introduce evidence of "similar acts" under Rule 404(b).

o         Concluding that such evidence had "clear relevance as to [petitioner's knowledge]."

Similar Act Evidence (First Piece)

o         Paul Toney, record store owner, testified the petitioner offered to sell him 12 TVs.

o         Petitioner said he had thousands more.

o         Toney purchased 20, then another 18 TV.

Similar Act Evidence (Second Piece)

o         Robert Nelson, an undercover FBI agent, testified the petitioner offered to sell him a large number of appliances.

o         Petitioner was arrested.

o         It was determined that the appliances had a value of approximately $ 20,000 and were part of a shipment that had been stolen.

Petitioners Argument Commission Basis

o         Leroy West was the supplier of the Memorex Tapes.

o         The sales were on a commission basis.

o         He had no knowledge that ANY of the goods were stolen.

District Court - Ruling

o         Instructed the jury that similar acts evidence was to be used ONLY to establish the petitioners knowledge, and NOT to prove his character.

o         Jury convicted on the possession count only.

Supreme Court Certiorari

o         Certiorari was granted to resolve, whether the trial court must make a preliminary finding before similar act and other Rule 404(b) evidence is submitted to the jury.

Evidence > Relevance > Prior Acts, Crimes & Wrongs Rule

o         Evidence should be admitted IF there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the similar act.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b),

o         Applies in both civil and criminal cases,

o         Generally prohibits the introduction of evidence of extrinsic acts that might adversely reflect on the actor's character, unless that evidence bears upon a relevant issue in the case such as motive, opportunity, or knowledge.

Ascertaining State Of Mind

o         Extrinsic acts evidence may be critical to the establishment of the truth as to a disputed issue, especially when that issue involves the actor's state of mind and the only means of ascertaining that mental state is by drawing inferences from conduct.

Petitioners Argument (Television Evidence)

o         The District Court erred in admitting Toneys testimony as to the petitions sale of the televisions.

Courts Threshold Inquiry (Probative material issue other than character)

o         The threshold question a court must make before admitting similar act evidence under Rule 404(b) is whether that evidence is probative of a material issue other than character.

Governments Argument

o         The Government's theory of relevance was that the televisions were stolen, and proof that petitioner had engaged in a series of sales of stolen merchandise from the same suspicious source would be strong evidence that he was aware that each of these items, including the Memorex tapes, was stolen.

Petitioners Argument (Failed to Prove TVs were stolen)

o         The evidence should not have been admitted because the Government failed to prove to the District Court that the televisions were in fact stolen.

Improper Prejudice

o         This has the grave potential for causing improper prejudice.

Punish for similar acts rather than the charged act

o         The jury may choose to punish the Df for the similar rather than the charged act, or the jury may infer that the Df is an evil person inclined to violate the law.

The Court needs to Make Determination First

o         Because of this danger, petitioner maintains, the jury ought not to be exposed to similar act evidence until the trial court has heard the evidence and made a determination under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) that the defendant  [*687]  committed the similar act.

Preponderance of the Evidence

o         According to petitioner, the trial court must make this preliminary finding by at least a preponderance of the evidence.

Rule 104(a) Preliminary Questions

o         Rule 104(a) provides that "preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b)."

Courts Response

o         The court rejects the petitioners language that Rule 404(b) requires a preliminary showing that Rule 404(b) act occurred before admitting the act into evidence.

Rule 104(b) Relevancy conditioned on fact.

         When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.

Courts 104(b) Analysis to introduce sufficient evidence

o         The Trial court neither weighs credibility nor makes a finding that the Government has proved the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence.

Jury could reasonably find the conditional fact

o         The court simply examines all the evidence in the case and decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact -- here, that the televisions were stolen -- by a preponderance of the evidence.

Access sufficiency can be determined later in trial

o         Often the trial court may decide to allow the proponent to introduce evidence concerning a similar act, and at a later point in the trial assess whether sufficient evidence has been offered to permit the jury to make the requisite finding.

Disregard if failed to meet minimal standard of proof

o         If the proponent has failed to meet this minimal standard of proof, the trial court must instruct the jury to disregard the evidence.

Courts Summary

o         In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence under Rule 104(b), the trial court must consider all evidence presented to the jury.

Cumulation

o         "Individual pieces of evidence, insufficient in themselves to prove a point, may in cumulation prove it.

Sum of Parts

o         The sum of an evidentiary presentation may well be greater than its constituent parts."

o         In assessing whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the televisions were stolen, the court here was required to consider not only the direct evidence on that point

o         the low price of the televisions,

o         the large quantity offered for sale, and

o         petitioner's inability to produce a bill of sale

o         but also the evidence concerning petitioner's involvement in the sales of other stolen merchandise obtained from Wesby, such as the Memorex tapes and the Amana appliances.

Courts Holding

o         Given this evidence, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the televisions were stolen, and the trial court therefore properly allowed the evidence to go to the jury.

o         Affirmed

Rule

Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes

(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

o         Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.

o         It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

Courts Threshold Inquiry (Probative material issue other than character)

o         The threshold question a court must make before admitting similar act evidence under Rule 404(b) is whether that evidence is probative of a material issue other than character.

Rule

Rule 104.  Preliminary Questions

(b) Relevancy conditioned on fact.

         When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.

Book Notes

         The relevancy of a piece of evidence depends upon proof of other facts.

         I.e., Did the Df agents have the authority to sign the contract?

         Rule 104(b) provide that both the judge and the jury share the responsibility of determining admissibility for evidence whose admission is conditioned upon another fact.

Judges Role

         The judges role is to decide whether a reasonable juror could find the contended fact to be true.

         If so, the judge admits the evidence, and the jury is instructed to disregard it if they find the contested fact does not exist.

Rule

Rule 104. Preliminary Questions

(a) Questions of admissibility generally.

         Preliminary questions concerning the qualification

o    of a person to be a witness,

o    the existence of a privilege, or

o    the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b).

o    In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.

Book Notes

         Trial judge determines the admissibility of proposed evidence except for matters involving conditional relevancy.

         The judge may hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury.

o    Each side presents their evidence relevant to whether the legal requirements are met.

o    The judge acts as the trier of facts to determine the legal requirements.

         The judge is NOT bound by the rules of evidence in determining evidence admissibility, EXCEPT for those with respect to privileges.

         The judge should consider only reliable portions of evidence and to disregard those that are unreliable.

Class Notes