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. Morano
  697 F.2d 923· 11th Cir.· 1983-02-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of another arsonist's convictions and modus operandi.
• United States v. Hadaway
  681 F.2d 214· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-10 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of a criminal defendant's similar bad acts, even if relevant for intent, was improper when it served only to show propensity and was unduly prejudicial.
• United States v. Bendis
  681 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Hawaii indictment was not barred by double jeopardy and that the prosecution was not vindictive, affirming the district court's denial of the motions to dismiss.
• United States v. Davis
  657 F.2d 637· 4th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in admitting remote and prejudicial testimony regarding past drug sales, this error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
• United States v. Bruner
  657 F.2d 1278· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of prescriptions under the business records exception or coconspirator rule was proper, and that the failure to give immediate limiting instructions on prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial error.
• United States v. Pisari
  636 F.2d 855· 1st Cir.· 1981-01-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the defendant's prior robbery, solely to impeach his credibility by suggesting he lied about committing a similar crime, was improper and not harmless error.
• United States v. Bettencourt
  614 F.2d 214· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the erroneous admission of evidence concerning a prior expunged arrest was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the jury instructions correctly tracked the statutory language.
• United States v. Hicks
  798 F.2d 446· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-03 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the admission of the jailhouse confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment because the informant did not act as a government agent in eliciting the statements, and the admission of diary entries was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) as relevant to intent.
• United States v. Deroy Shomo
  786 F.2d 981· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 31×
  The court held that evidence of other firearms should not have been admitted as it was unduly prejudicial and not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
• JAY Edwards, Inc. v. NEW England Toyota Distrib., Inc.
  708 F.2d 814· 1st Cir.· 1983-05-19 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the jury's award for damages during the period the defendant was the distributor was supported by sufficient evidence, but the award for damages after the defendant ceased to be the distributor could not stand due to insufficient evidence and a timely objectio
• United States v. Gambler
  662 F.2d 834· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-13 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination regarding the witness's prior civil suits, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not warrant reversal of the convictions.
• United States v. Ible
  630 F.2d 389· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-14 ·cited 31×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's conduct of voir dire.
• United States v. Cady
  567 F.2d 771· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for mail fraud and conspiracy, and that the grand jury presentation did not deprive the appellant of due process.
• United States v. Sanchez-Robles
  927 F.2d 1070· 9th Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The Ninth Circuit held that a 'deliberate ignorance' instruction was inappropriate because the evidence only supported actual knowledge or complete lack of knowledge, not conscious avoidance of the truth. The court reversed the conviction due to the improper instruction.
• United States v. Wood
  924 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and that the admission of a letter, even if erroneous, constituted harmless error. However, the court found that one uncharged drug transaction was improperly included in calculating t
• United States v. Jenkins
  904 F.2d 549· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence supported the continuing criminal enterprise charge, evidentiary rulings were proper, severance was not required, bifurcation of forfeiture was not plain error absent a request, and there was no grand jury abuse.
• United States v. Kandiel
  865 F.2d 967· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of expert testimony on genetic marker probabilities, 'other crimes' evidence, and audio tapes was proper, and the trial court's conduct did not prejudice the defendant.
• United States v. Perez
  849 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of prior bad act evidence was an error that was not harmless, requiring vacatur of the conviction.
• United States v. Edgardo Giorgi
  840 F.2d 1022· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that a prior plea agreement did not bar prosecution for arson and mail fraud, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury did not warrant dismissal of the indictment.
• United States v. Ellison M. Stockton
  788 F.2d 210· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instructions adequately conveyed the elements of embezzlement under 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the admission of certain testimony and denial of a new trial were not erroneous.
• United States v. Ira Blackwood
  768 F.2d 131· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for racketeering and extortion under the Hobbs Act, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in its handling of the government's closing argument.
• United States v. Muelbl
  739 F.2d 1175· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury instructions did not constructively amend the indictment and that the limitations on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. Thompson
  730 F.2d 82· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the government's use of peremptory challenges did not violate the Sixth Amendment and that other evidentiary and procedural rulings were proper.
• United States v. Ray T. Davis (80-5015) & Raymond Wallace (80-5023)
  707 F.2d 880· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-13 ·cited 30×
  Joinder of defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b) is improper if based solely on a substantive RICO count without evidence of connection between the various predicate acts or defendant's participation in the full scope of racketeering.
• United States v. McCRARY
  699 F.2d 1308· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-18 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on variance, admission of evidence, sufficiency of evidence, or suppression of evidence.
• United States v. Simmons
  679 F.2d 1042· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the statutory language 'takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin' in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) encompasses a comprehensive scheme to negotiate checks bearing forged signatures to withdraw funds from federally insured banks. The court also rejected add
• United States v. Hunter
  672 F.2d 815· 10th Cir.· 1982-03-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that trial courts lack the power to independently grant use immunity to witnesses, as this power is solely the prerogative of the government. All other asserted grounds for appeal were also found meritless.
• United States v. DeLOACH
  654 F.2d 763· D.C. Cir.· 1980-12-04 ·cited 30×
  The court noted that the prosecution's presentation of 'bad acts' testimony was improper, even though the conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Johnson
  618 F.2d 60· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-30 ·cited 30×
  The court held that improper testimony elicited by the court, judicial conduct, and inconsistent witness testimony did not warrant reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Shelton
  628 F.2d 54· D.C. Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prosecutor's cross-examination, which implied the defendant and a witness were involved in criminal activity without proper foundation, constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Milhollan
  599 F.2d 518· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-12 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the warrantless search of the satchel and the automobile violated the Fourth Amendment, as there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances to justify the searches.
• United States v. D'Alora
  585 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of marked money from a prior drug transaction was proper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 403, and that the denial of a mistrial and the rejection of the jury panel challenge were also correct.
• United States v. Espinoza
  578 F.2d 224· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior similar act and that the stop of the truck was based on reasonable suspicion.
• United States v. Alvarez-Lopez
  559 F.2d 1155· 9th Cir.· 1977-08-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court committed prejudicial error of constitutional dimension by refusing to permit the defendant to inquire into the government's star witness' prior arrest for smuggling narcotics, thereby curtailing cross-examination.
• Carter v. United States
  549 F.2d 77· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding a forged prescription was not prejudicial error because it completed the story of the crime on trial and was properly admitted under the res gestae exception.
• United States v. McMILLIAN
  535 F.2d 1035· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes and in denying motions for production of witness information, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Burns
  529 F.2d 114· 9th Cir.· 1975-12-22 ·cited 30×
  Federal laws of general applicability, including those concerning firearm possession by felons and assault with a dangerous weapon, apply to Indians on Indian reservations, and evidence of prior similar conduct is admissible to prove intent.
• United States v. Valois
  915 F.3d 717· 11th Cir.· 2019-02-12 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences, finding no error in the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, denial of a mistrial, or handling of potential attorney conflicts of interest.
• United States v. Matthews
  431 F.3d 1296· 11th Cir.· 2005-12-06 ·cited 29×
  Terrance Matthews was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine and two counts of obstruction of justice by intimidation of a witness. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that wiretap recordings were properly sealed within one to two days of the o
• United States v. Gomez
  927 F.2d 1530· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that post-arrest statements obtained after the defendant requested counsel, and following police-initiated discussion of sentencing and cooperation, were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and should have been suppressed.
• United States v. Felix
  926 F.2d 1522· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause, as interpreted by Grady v. Corbin, barred successive prosecutions for the same conduct, requiring reversal of convictions based on conduct already used to establish a prior conviction.
• United States v. Gomez-Norena
  908 F.2d 497· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-12 ·cited 29×
  The court held that admitting drug courier profile testimony for background and expert testimony on intent to distribute was not plain error, as the defendant failed to properly preserve objections.
• United States v. Leavitt
  878 F.2d 1329· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the convictions of all eight defendants, finding sufficient evidence to support their involvement in the drug importation scheme and rejecting their various challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary rulings.
• Jones v. Counselor Hamelman
  869 F.2d 1023· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 29×
  The magistrate did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint, excluding certain testimony, or denying the inmate's presence at trial, and the factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Johnson
  542 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-05 ·cited 29×
  The court held that an accused is not justified in threatening deadly force against federal officers, even if the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for their actions. The court also held that evidence of a prior conviction and arrest warrant was admissible for impeachment purp
• United States v. Harrison
  942 F.2d 751· 10th Cir.· 1991-08-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while a variance existed between the indictment and the proof, it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. However, the court found the government failed to prove the defendant's specific conspiracy extended past the effective date of the Sentencing
• United States v. Anderson
  933 F.2d 1261· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the admissibility of evidence of prior fires at the defendant's factory could not be determined on the record due to the trial court's failure to properly apply the Beechum test and Rule 104(b) regarding conditional relevancy.
• United States v. MacIas
  930 F.2d 567· 7th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court properly calculated the offense level based on the negotiated amount of cocaine and that the Sentencing Guidelines are constitutional.
• United States v. Yerks
  918 F.2d 1371· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-21 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err in admitting other crimes evidence, denying a motion for acquittal, or applying the Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. Haynes
  881 F.2d 586· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that evidence of prior marijuana dealings was admissible to show intent and knowledge, the aiding and abetting instruction was proper for the schoolyard statute, and the sentencing enhancements were correctly applied.