United States v. Wilson

154 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Moncayo

    440 F. App'x 647 (10th Cir. 2011)   Cited 5 times

    This court reviews a district court's decision to admit evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1997). Even if the district court abused its discretion, this court will "not disturb a jury verdict based on a Rule 404(b) error if it was harmless."

  2. U.S. v. Becker

    230 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000)   Cited 109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court abused its discretion by admitting prior acts relating to methamphetamine possession and trafficking to prove a common scheme of manufacturing the drug

    Testimony which is not offered to prove the truth of an out-of-court statement, but is offered instead for relevant context or background, is not considered hearsay. See United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 781 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Freeman, 816 F.2d 558, 563 (10th Cir. 1987). "[O]ut-of-court statements by informants offered to explain the background of an investigation . . . must be evaluated under . . . Fed.R.Evid. 401 and 403 for relevance and to prevent confusion or prejudice."

  3. U.S. v. Gastelum

    Case No. 2:05CR825DAK (D. Utah May. 16, 2006)

    In this context, we held that the statements are offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain the preparations and steps in the investigation." United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 780-81 (10th Cir. 1997). The government argues that it intends to offer testimony from Cutler alluding to information he received from the CI to explain why the officers conducted controlled buys with Defendants. It is clear under Tenth Circuit law that testimony offered for the limited purpose of explaining why an investigation was undertaken, rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is not hearsay. The government is no longer seeking to introduce evidence regarding Defendants' previous possession of firearms or information from the CI with respect to previous controlled buys.

  4. United States v. Enriquez

    457 F. App'x 795 (10th Cir. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    This test requires that (1) the evidence was offered for a proper purpose under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), (2) the evidence was relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, (3) the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and (4) the district court, upon request, instructed the jury to consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was admitted. United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988)).

  5. U.S. v. Riley

    292 F. App'x 717 (10th Cir. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Denying motion for judgment of acquittal in felon-in-possession case where grand jury heard evidence on ten prior convictions but petit jury heard evidence on only one prior conviction

    To obtain a conviction under § 922(g) for possession of a firearm by a felon, the government must prove: (1) the defendant was convicted of a felony; (2) he thereafter knowingly possessed a firearm; and (3) the possession was in or affecting interstate commerce. See United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 779 (10th Cir. 1997). "As we have repeatedly held, possession can be actual or constructive."

  6. U.S. v. Scull

    321 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Continuing to apply the Remmer burden of proof standard

    "Rather than examining the evidence in bits and pieces, we evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence by consider[ing] the collective inferences to be drawn from the evidence as a whole." United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 778 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted) (alteration in original). Moreover, "while the evidence supporting the conviction must be substantial and do more than raise a mere suspicion of guilt, it need not conclusively exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and it need not negate all possibilities except guilt."

  7. U.S. v. Heckard

    238 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2001)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that government had "met its burden of proof regarding possession in proximity to the offense," when gun found "physically near" the defendant in a location that was "repeatedly the locus for drug trafficking" 24 days following defendant's "last documented drug activity"

    Constructive possession is sufficient for conviction under this statute. See United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 779 (10th Cir. 1997). "In cases of joint occupancy, where the government seeks to prove constructive possession by circumstantial evidence, it must present evidence to show some connection or nexus between the defendant and the firearm or other contraband."

  8. U.S. v. Lazcano-Villalobos

    175 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1999)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that this court can conduct a "de novo balancing where the trial court failed to make explicit findings to support a Rule 403 ruling"

    We have consistently upheld implicit Rule 403 determinations when the determinations are supported by the record. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 783 (10th Cir. 1997) (concluding the district court implicitly made a Rule 403 finding when it ruled at trial and at a motion in limine hearing to admit 404(b) evidence); Mills, 29 F.3d at 549 (holding the district court implicitly made a Rule 403 determination when the defendant argued prejudice would outweigh the 404(b) evidence's utility); accord United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d 1549, 1553-54 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 953 (1993); United States v. Patterson, 20 F.3d 809, 814 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 841 (1994). Our holding in McVeigh merely reaffirms our authority to conduct a de novo balancing where the trial court failed to make explicit findings to support a Rule 403 ruling.

  9. U.S. v. Tunkara

    385 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (D. Kan. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that inadequate boilerplate disclosure for drug trafficking case was cured by government's response highlighting the expert testimony it expected to offer from highway patrol troopers

    (1) the evidence was offered for a proper purposes under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); (2) the evidence was relevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401; (3) the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice under Fed.R.Evid. 403; and (4) the district court, upon request, instructed the jury to consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was admitted.United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1997). The government must precisely articulate a proper purpose for the evidence, and the trial court must specifically identify the proper purpose for which it is admitted.

  10. U.S. v. Pickard

    236 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2002)

    To determine whether a prior conviction is admissible under Rule 404(b), we apply a four-part test set out in United States v. Huddleston, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988): (1) the evidence must be offered for one of the proper purposes articulated by Rule 404(b); (2) it must be relevant under Rule 402; (3) its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect under Rule 403; and (4) the trial court, upon request, must instruct the jury to consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was admitted, as required by Rule 105. See United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1997). Frankly, prior to the hearing on November 8th the court was prepared to grant this aspect of the defendant's motion.