United States v. Carroll, 207 F.3d 465 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

2000

Chapter

9

Title

A Return to Relevance II:  Character and Habit

Page

421

Topic

Rule 405

Quick Notes

Carroll appealed from his conviction and sentence following a jury trial of armed robbery of a federally insured credit union and a related firearms charge. Carroll argued that evidence of a 10-year-old prior conviction for armed robbery was improperly admitted. The court of appeals agreed, but affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. The court found that defendant's prior conviction was erroneously admitted, but that such error was harmless. The court reasoned that the prior bank robbery and the credit union robbery charged were too generic and remote from one another to permit a reasonable inference of identity.

Rule 404(b) Prohibits this evidence, UNLESS

o         Unless the robberies are "sufficiently idiosyncratic" to make them "clearly distinctive from the thousands of other bank robberies committed each year," evidence of the prior crime is "nothing more than the character evidence that Rule 404(b) prohibits.

Modus Operandi Plan or Pattern Factors Signature Facts [404(b)]

1.     The distinctiveness of the facts that make the crimes unique.

2.     The proximity of the crimes in space and time.

Court - Holding

o         Based on the (1) generic nature of the crimes and (2) on the ten years that passed between them, we conclude that the prior conviction was not relevant to prove identity through modus operandi because no substantial inference of identity reasonably could be made.

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.  (Propensity)

Exception

o    It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of

§  MAK O PI PI

o    M - Motive

o    A - Absence of Mistake or Accident

o    K - Knowledge

o    O - Opportunity

o    P - Plan

o    I - Intend

o    P - Preparation

o    I - Identity

o         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.

Book Name

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

Issue

o         Whether a past conviction that occurred 10 years ago that is general in nature is admissible?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         Determined that prior conviction was admissible for purposes of showing a plan or pattern and identity

Appellant

o         Affirmed

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl - United States

Df - Carroll

Description

o         Carroll was convicted by a jury of armed robbery.

o         Carroll argues that evidence from his prior conviction was improperly admitted.

o         10 years prior, Carroll was convicted of armed robbery.

Prosecution

o         Sought to introduce evidence of his prior conviction under rule 404(b).

o         To prove plan, knowledge or identity.

District Court

o         Determined that prior conviction was admissible for purposes of showing a plan or pattern and identity.

When Prior Bad Acts Can show a Plan or Pattern

1.     When a Df - prior bad acts are part of a broader plan or scheme to the charge offense.

o    EX:  When a criminal steals a car to use it to use it in a robbery.  The intrinsic evidence merely shows the full context of the crime.

2.     Where the pattern and characteristics of the crimes are so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature, evidence of a defendant's prior crimes is admissible to prove that it was indeed the defendant that committed the charged crime.

o    In these cases, the evidence goes to identity

Court - Rejected Carrolls 10-year old conviction

o         Victims were different

o         Events were far apart.

District Court - Admitted to show identity.

Court - Unique set of signature facts, Prior conviction would be admissible.

o         If the conduct underlying Carroll's prior conviction and his current charged offense both involved a unique set of "signature facts," then his prior conviction would be admissible to show that the same person committed both crimes.

Rule 404(b) Prohibits this evidence, UNLESS

o         Unless the robberies are "sufficiently idiosyncratic" to make them "clearly distinctive from the thousands of other bank robberies committed each year," evidence of the prior crime is "nothing more than the character evidence that Rule 404(b) prohibits.

Court Threshold Determination

o         The District Court must determine if a reasonable jury could conclude that the same person committed both crimes based on comparing the past acts and the charged offense.

Modus Operandi Plan or Pattern Factors Signature Facts [404(b)]

1.     The distinctiveness of the facts that make the crimes unique.

2.     The proximity of the crimes in space and time.

Characteristic Shared by two robberies

Method of Robbery

o         There robberies are too common to form a modus operand that uniquely identify Carroll as the perpetrator.

o         There needs to be a frame of reference the measures the uniqueness of the crime.

o    The signature facts relied upon the government are frequent in bank robberies.

§  Nylon stocking mask, carried a gun, and vaulted over the counter.

Court - Geographic Closeness of the robberies

o         Both are financial institutions.

o         Both are located in the same city of St. Louis.

o         However, they occurred 10 years apart.

Court - Holding

o         Based on the (1) generic nature of the crimes and (2) on the ten years that passed between them, we conclude that the prior conviction was not relevant to prove identity through modus operandi because no substantial inference of identity reasonably could be made.

o         Our criminal justice system has long forbidden juries from convicting an individual, not for facts which prove the charged offense, but for prior acts that, at best, show a criminal propensity.

o         It was therefore an abuse of discretion to admit evidence of the prior bank robbery committed by Carroll, for that robbery is not relevant to any question other than Carroll's propensity to rob banks

Rules

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.  (Propensity)

Exception

o    It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of

§  MAK O PI PI

o    M - Motive

o    A - Absence of Mistake or Accident

o    K - Knowledge

o    O - Opportunity

o    P - Plan

o    I - Intend

o    P - Preparation

o    I - Identity

o    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.

Class Notes