Federal Rule Of Evidence 404(B)

1,318 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 7 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Porter
  881 F.2d 878· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-28 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the exculpatory hearsay statement, that the admission of other bad acts evidence was harmless error, and that the Allen charge was not impermissibly coercive.
• United States v. Colin Brooks Anderson
  879 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed convictions for making false statements to the government and conspiring to defraud the United States, finding sufficient evidence and no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or severance denials.
• United States v. Rivera
  837 F.2d 906· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 28×
  The admission of evidence of uncharged drug offenses to prove the continuing series element of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charge was improper because the indictment failed to provide adequate notice of such proof, violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be
• United States v. Holm
  836 F.2d 1119· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs found in the house.
• United States v. Currier
  836 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the documents presented did not trigger the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and that the tape recording was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• United States v. Mendez-Ortiz
  810 F.2d 76· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding threats and bribery was not plain error and that the defendant was not entitled to an indirect entrapment instruction because he denied the elements of the offense.
• United States v. Arnoldo Moreno-Hinojosa
  804 F.2d 845· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while prior convictions were admissible, the evidence was insufficient to prove knowing possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
• United States v. Greenwood
  796 F.2d 49· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the defendant's claims of selective prosecution, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and improper submission of a count to the jury lacked merit.
• United States v. Herminio Hernandez
  750 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admission of inadmissible hearsay testimony, which was then emphasized in closing arguments, denied the defendant a fair trial, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Wilson
  732 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or procedural decisions, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• United States v. Elkins
  732 F.2d 1280· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed Elkins' convictions on all counts and Dichtel's conviction as an accessory after the fact, but reversed Dichtel's convictions for distribution and aiding and abetting due to insufficient evidence.
• Ellis v. Black
  732 F.2d 650· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition, finding sufficient evidence to support the manslaughter conviction and no constitutional error in the admission of evidence or prosecutorial conduct.
• United States v. Neary
  733 F.2d 210· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a device using contained natural gas, a timer, and a hotplate to cause an explosion constitutes an 'explosive' under the Explosive Control Act, but admitting evidence of prior unrelated fires was prejudicial error, and the evidence for mail fraud in Count Thre
• United States v. Smith
  727 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-26 ·cited 28×
  A defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime even if not explicitly charged in the indictment, provided the government gives notice and evidence supports the theory. Similar act evidence was properly admitted for intent and plan, and any error in admitting extrinsi
• United States v. Wilford R. Gibson
  690 F.2d 697· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that statements made by GMI employees/salesmen were not hearsay when offered to prove the existence of a scheme to defraud, and were admissible against the defendant, and that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
• United States v. Lebovitz
  669 F.2d 894· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while the trial judge's exercise of discretion under Rule 403 was proper, the record should explicitly reflect the balancing of probative value against prejudice.
• United States v. Phillips Lee Saunders
  641 F.2d 659· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-02 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Heller
  625 F.2d 594· 5th Cir.· 1980-09-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction despite acquittal on the substantive offense, and that the conduct of British authorities did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Miranda. Any error in admitting business cards was harmless.
• United States v. Witt
  618 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-02 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the admission of evidence of other crimes was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
• United States v. Sada Vargas
  615 F.2d 952· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-11 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Barbieri
  614 F.2d 715· 10th Cir.· 1980-02-01 ·cited 28×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant's interstate travel was in furtherance of his criminal objectives under the Travel Act, and that the admission of prior bad acts evidence was proper.
• United States v. Ritch
  583 F.2d 1179· 1st Cir.· 1978-09-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the joinder of drug and bail jumping charges was proper, and the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Miller
  573 F.2d 388· 7th Cir.· 1978-01-20 ·cited 28×
• United States v. Robert B. French (90-6222)
  974 F.2d 687· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-20 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the stops and detentions were objectively reasonable, French's consent to search was voluntary and effective as to Foster, the admission of prior bad acts testimony was not an abuse of discretion, the evidence was sufficient to convict Caldwell, and Caldwell w
• United States v. Farmer
  923 F.2d 1557· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 27×
  The court held that double jeopardy and collateral estoppel did not bar retrial after a mistrial, the district court had jurisdiction to proceed, evidentiary rulings were proper, and the sentencing appeal was moot.
• United States v. Hopkins
  916 F.2d 207· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-19 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy, concealment, misapplication, and false entries, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance or admitting evidence of a prior bad act.
• United States v. Donnie Foster
  889 F.2d 1049· 11th Cir.· 1989-12-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that evidence of a prior, uncharged drug transaction was admissible as 'inextricably intertwined' with the charged offenses, and that the government's breach of a debriefing agreement required resentencing by a different judge.
• United States v. Lino Catabran
  836 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting computer printouts as business records, allowing testimony about carpet removal, or denying motions for severance and mistrial, and that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
• United States v. Blankenship
  775 F.2d 735· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-25 ·cited 27×
  Evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove predisposition to commit similar crimes for profit, even if not highly similar, as long as prejudice does not substantially outweigh probative value.
• United States v. Cotton
  751 F.2d 1146· 10th Cir.· 1985-01-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that evidence seized from a car during a search incident to a lawful arrest is admissible, even if the arrestee is handcuffed and outside the vehicle, and that a prosecutor's question, immediately admonished by the court, does not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Dalfonso
  707 F.2d 757· 3d Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err by refusing to recuse himself, nor by permitting a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment on cross-examination regarding cumulative impeachment evidence.
• United States v. Pirolli
  673 F.2d 1200· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the co-conspirator's statement and the cocaine found in the abandoned bag, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• Smith v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  633 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-22 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior fires and did not err in concluding the trustee in bankruptcy was not an indispensable party.
• Brown v. Miller
  631 F.2d 408· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-26 ·cited 27×
  A public official's misuse of power, even for personal gain, constitutes action 'under color of state law' for § 1983 claims. Prejudicial admission of irrelevant evidence requires a new trial on damages.
• United States v. Potter
  616 F.2d 384· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 27×
  The court held that evidence of sexual conduct with patients was admissible to prove motive and lack of good faith, and that prosecutorial improprieties in closing arguments did not constitute reversible error.
• United States v. Edward J. Bros.
  955 F.2d 493· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the restitution order is remanded for clarification of the exact amount due, as the order was not impermissibly vague but lacked precise calculation.
• United States v. Ovidio Camejo
  929 F.2d 610· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-22 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of prior good conduct offered to negate intent, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that various procedural and evidentiary rulings were not grounds for reversal.
• United States v. Thompson
  906 F.2d 1292· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the informant's tip, corroborated by police observations, provided reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the arrest and search of the vehicle. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the guil
• United States v. Ware
  897 F.2d 1538· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that police officers deputized as federal agents could lawfully execute a wiretap under Oklahoma law, and that evidence of prior convictions could be admitted to show scheme or motive. Enhanced sentences were upheld under the sentencing guidelines.
• United States v. Hudson
  884 F.2d 1016· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-11 ·cited 26×
  Evidence of prior similar acts is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it meets a four-part test, and the trial court has discretion regarding jury instructions and expert testimony.
• United States v. Koonce
  884 F.2d 349· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, no prejudicial error in jury instructions or admission of prior bad acts, and that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were constitutional and properly applied.
• United States v. Ortiz
  857 F.2d 900· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting defense counsel's closing arguments by threatening to admit prior convictions if the defendant raised the issue of personal drug use.
• United States v. Lynn
  856 F.2d 430· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly circumscribing cross-examination regarding a witness's polygraph examination and by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior conviction, thereby impairing the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Lego
  855 F.2d 542· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the investigatory stop, search of the vehicle, admission of evidence under Rule 404(b), and the sentence imposed were all lawful.
• United States v. Echeverri
  854 F.2d 638· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction for the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) count and by admitting evidence of other crimes that was not sufficiently probative. However, the erroneous admission of evidence was d
• United States v. Cuch
  842 F.2d 1173· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior similar sexual assault to prove intent, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Lohman Ray Mays, Jr.
  822 F.2d 793· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government sufficiently proved the bank's federally insured status, the admission of dye-stained money was proper, and the admission of prior bad acts evidence was largely permissible, with one exception constituting harmless error. The court also found th
• United States v. Gruttadauro
  818 F.2d 1323· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that while the admission of prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b) was improper because the crime did not require specific intent and the defendant did not place his mental state at issue, this error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Hatfield
  815 F.2d 1068· 6th Cir.· 1987-04-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the search of the van was constitutional, the admission of burglary evidence was proper, and the appeal from the denial of the new trial motion was untimely.
• United States v. Morales-Quinones
  812 F.2d 604· 10th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment, admitting prior conviction evidence, admitting hearsay, or in its rulings on the witness's silence and credibility.