United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

1977

Chapter

9

Title

A Return to Relevance II:  Character and Habit

Page

415

Topic

Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).

Quick Notes

Hearst was tried under a two-count indictment of armed robbery.  The prosecution introduced evidence connecting Hearst with subsequent criminal activity at a sporting goods store and with a kidnapping and theft.  Heart said she was under duress at the time of the robbery.  The subsequent Los Angeles offenses were not similar to the San Francisco robbery.   Sequence events undermines relevance does NOT determine earlier state of mind. 

Court Evidence of other criminal acts may be admitted

o         Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).

o    Evidence of other criminal acts may be admitted for purposes other than proving criminal predisposition, however.

o    It may be received, for example, to prove knowledge, motive, and intent.

Court - The district court acted well within its discretion in admitting the evidence.

o         Appellant's state of mind during the San Francisco robbery was the central issue in the case.

o         State of mind is usually difficult to prove, and the evidence on the issue was sharply divided.

o         The timing and other circumstances of the Los Angeles incidents made evidence of them highly probative on this critical issue.

o         Though criminal, the incidents were not of a kind likely to inflame the jury.

o         The prejudice to appellant arose primarily from the light the evidence cast on appellant's state of mind during the San Francisco robbery and not from the incidental circumstance that it revealed appellant's involvement in other criminal acts.

Book Name

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

Issue

o         Whether subsequent acts be used to show INTENT [404(b)]?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where a jury found her guilty of armed robbery and sentenced her to nine years in prison

Appellant

o         Affirmed, No reversible error occurred.

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl - United States

Df - Hearst

Description

o         Hearst was tried under a two-count indictment of armed robbery of a San Francisco bank.

o          Plaintiff, the federal government, introduced photographs and testimony descriptive of defendant's role in the robbery.

o         Hearst raised the defense of duress and contended that her co-participants compelled her to engage in the criminal activity.

o         The jury found defendant guilty.

Prosecutions Case in Chief

o         The government introduced evidence connecting Hearst with criminal activity at a sporting goods store and with a kidnapping and theft.

Occurred One More After Band Robbery

o         These incidents occurred in the Los Angeles area approximately one month after the San Francisco bank robbery.

Evidence showed Hearst accompanied the Harrises, Discharged Rifle

o         The evidence showed that Hearst accompanied William and Emily Harris to Mel's Sporting Goods Store in Los Angeles, that the Harrises entered the store and left appellant outside in a truck, that a store clerk saw William Harris shoplifting and attempted to arrest him, and that Hearst discharged an automatic rifle at the store, enabling Harris to escape.

Stole Van, Kidnapped Van Owner

o         The evidence further showed that on the same day appellant and the Harrises stole a van and kidnapped its owner, Thomas Matthews.

Kidnap Victim testimony showed Hearst was a part of this SPECIFIC ACT

o         Matthews testified that during this incident the Harrises were outside the van and Hearst had an opportunity to escape or give Matthews a message but did not do so

Hearst Objects Irrelevant, Improper convincing of the jury

o         She asserts the evidence was irrelevant for any purpose except the improper one of convincing the jury that appellant acted in accordance with a criminal disposition.

Hearst Argues District Acts were dissimilar to Bank Robbery

o         She argues that even if the evidence were relevant to the issue of intent, as the district court held, the incidents were so dissimilar to the bank robbery that its probative value was minimal and outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Court Evidence of being a probable perpetrator

o         Evidence of other criminal acts may be persuasive that the accused is by propensity a probable perpetrator of the crime charged.

Court Excluded when offered as a probable perpetrator

o         Nonetheless, it is excluded when offered for this purpose because it may unduly influence the jury and deny the accused a fair opportunity to defend against the particular charge.

Court Evidence of other criminal acts may be admitted

o         Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).

o    Evidence of other criminal acts may be admitted for purposes other than proving criminal predisposition, however.

o    It may be received, for example, to prove knowledge, motive, and intent.

Prosecution Contends Subsequent criminal act was relevant

o         The government contends that the evidence of appellant's criminal acts in Los Angeles a month after the bank robbery was relevant to the issue of appellant's intent

o    when she participated in the San Francisco bank robbery, and

o    to whether appellant was acting under duress.

Court To Convict Hurst, Required to show

1.     Hurst was not acting under duress when she participated in the San Francisco bank robbery.

2.     The evidence of Hursts involvement in the Los Angeles activity was relevant to this issue because it tended to show Hurst willingly engaged in other criminal activity with persons of the same group at a time not unduly remote.

Hurst Args - Los Angeles offenses were not similar to the San Francisco robbery

o         Because the events were so dissimilar, she contends, they offer little insight into her state of mind during the robbery.  (Trying to prove duress here!!!)

Court - To justify admission of evidence of other crimes

o         The crimes must be "similar" to the offense charged only if it is the similarity of the crimes that underlies the relevance of the evidence.

Court Duress (INTENT) is not related to similar circumstance

o         Here the relevance of the evidence did not depend on the similarity of the Los Angeles crimes to the bank robbery but on the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the Los Angeles crimes, which indicated appellant had not acted under duress when she participated in the bank robbery.

Court Tendency of evidence show Hurst was not coerced when she participated

o         The tendency of the evidence regarding the Los Angeles crimes to prove appellant was not coerced when she participated in the San Francisco robbery is not diminished by the lack of similarity between the Los Angeles and San Francisco offenses.

Hurst Arg Sequence events undermines relevance does NOT determine earlier state of mind

o         The sequence of the San Francisco and Los Angeles events undermines the relevance of the latter to her state of mind during the San Francisco robbery.

Absence of Duress is later even would not prove her state of mind in the earlier robbery

o         Absence of duress in the later Los Angeles incidents would not be probative of her state of mind during the San Francisco robbery.

o         She contends, because the robbery itself made her an outlaw and a fugitive.

Her previous duress made it appear she participant willing in Los Angeles

o         This fact may have caused her to participate willingly in the Los Angeles events, she asserts, even if she were under duress during the earlier robbery.

Court -  Appellant's hypothesis does bear upon the probative value of the evidence

o         It is an appropriate consideration.

o         Only a hypothesis

o         Highly speculative one.

o         The jury could well reject appellant's theory and conclude that if appellant had been forced to participate in the bank robbery against her will she would have refrained from criminal activity in Los Angeles or seized the opportunity to escape.

Court - The district court acted well within its discretion in admitting the evidence.

o         Appellant's state of mind during the San Francisco robbery was the central issue in the case.

o         State of mind is usually difficult to prove, and the evidence on the issue was sharply divided.

o         The timing and other circumstances of the Los Angeles incidents made evidence of them highly probative on this critical issue.

o         Though criminal, the incidents were not of a kind likely to inflame the jury.

o         The prejudice to appellant arose primarily from the light the evidence cast on appellant's state of mind during the San Francisco robbery and not from the incidental circumstance that it revealed appellant's involvement in other criminal acts.

Rules

Court Evidence of other criminal acts may be admitted

o         Fed.R.Evid. 404(b).

o    Evidence of other criminal acts may be admitted for purposes other than proving criminal predisposition, however.

o    It may be received, for example, to prove knowledge, motive, and intent.

Class Notes