From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Thomas

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 24, 2006
Case No. 2:06-cr-00021 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 2:06-cr-00021.

March 24, 2006


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on the Objection by Defendant, Troy W. Thomas ("Defendant"), to the Government's Notice of its intent to produce the following evidence at trial: (1) after his arrest, Defendant stated that, while in police custody, he had ingested a quantity of heroin; and (2) after inquiring into whether someone in the area of Mt. Vernon St. would help him distribute heroin, Defendant's alleged co-conspirator, Mr. Tinsley, was introduced to Defendant.

The Court finds that the government's evidence that Defendant had ingested heroin is admissible at trial as an admission of a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). The Court finds, however, that the government's evidence as to Mr. Tinsley's introduction to Defendant is hearsay, and, therefore, is inadmissible as evidence of a common plan or scheme under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

The government also argues that the statement is admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Because this Court admits the statement under 801(d)(2), it need not decide admissibility under 404(b).

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's objection is OVERRULED in part, and SUSTAINED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Thomas

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 24, 2006
Case No. 2:06-cr-00021 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2006)
Case details for

U.S. v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TROY W. THOMAS, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Mar 24, 2006

Citations

Case No. 2:06-cr-00021 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2006)