Opinion
Crim. No. 09-117-SLR.
December 13, 2010
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 13th day of December, 2010, having reviewed the pending motions in limine;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's motion in limine to exclude "irrelevant, prejudicial and other crimes evidence" (D.I. 61) is denied to the extent the court has granted the government's motions in limine discussed below.
2. Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence seized (D.I. 62) is denied. The court has already denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence (D.I. 35, 67); it is for the jury to determine whether the vehicle and the items seized therefrom were in the possession and/or control of defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Ross, 2007 WL 2571620 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2007).
3. The government's motion in limine to admit evidence regarding defendant's probationary status and evidence of defendant's drug possession and use (D.I. 71) is granted. In order for such evidence to be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), the evidence: (a) must have a proper purpose; (b) must be relevant; (c) its probative value must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice; and (d) the court must charge the jury to consider th evidence only for the limited purpose for which it is admitted. United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 460 (3d Cir. 2003).
a. In this case, evidence regarding defendant's probationary status and the reasons for his arrest and search of his car is relevant and a necessary context for the jury to understand the charged crime. See United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233, 247 (3d Cir. 2010). Moreover, the jury will not be told of the specific crime for which defendant was serving probation, or for which he was wanted on the outstanding warrant; therefore, no unfair prejudice will result.
b. The drug-related evidence on the defendant's person and in the trunk of his car is admissible, as it provides a possible motive and intent to possess a firearm, that is, to protect defendant's illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.
c. The court will charge the jury consistent with the limiting instruction attached hereto as exhibit A to this order.
4. The government's motion in limine regarding defendant's prior convictions (D.I. 72) is granted, consistent with Fed.R.Evid. 609 and under the following conditions:
a. Such information will be elicited only should defendant argue at trial that he was not in possession of the loaded revolver that was found inside a "firebox" located in the trunk of his car and takes the stand to so testify, as credibility would then become a central focus of the case.
b. The government will only inquire as to the fact of conviction (i.e., that defendant has been convicted of a "felony" offense) and the dates of such convictions.
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED LIMITING INSTRUCTION
Defendant's Prior Bad Acts or Crimes (F.R.E. 404(b))
You have heard testimony that the defendant was on probation when he was arrested on October 8, 2009, and that he was arrested because he was wanted on an outstanding warrant for another offense. You have also heard testimony that illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered from a safe or firebox in the defendant's car, and that the defendant uses marijuana.This evidence was admitted only for limited purposes. You may only consider this evidence for the purpose of providing the necessary context to understand the charged crime, and whether the defendant had the state of mind, knowledge, or intent necessary to commit the crime charged. You may therefore use this evidence to help you understand Officer Payton's role in the investigation, his relationship to the defendant, and why Officer Payton took the defendant into custody and searched the defendant's car. You may also consider whether the evidence that illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered from the defendant's car, and that he uses marijuana, makes it more likely that the defendant had the state of mind, knowledge, or intent to possess the firearm that was recovered in his car on October 8, 2009.
Do not consider this evidence for any other purpose.
Of course, it is for you to determine whether you believe this evidence and, if you do believe it, whether you accept it for the purpose offered. You may give it such weight as you feel it deserves, but only for the limited purpose that I described to you.
The defendant is not on trial for being on probation, for being wanted on an active arrest warrant, or for possessing and using illegal drugs. You may not consider this evidence as a substitute for proof that the defendant committed the crime charged. You may not consider this evidence as proof that the defendant has a bad character or any propensity to commit crimes. Specifically, you may not use this evidence to conclude that because the defendant may have been on probation or wanted on an active arrest warrant, or that he possesses and uses illegal drugs, he must also have committed the act charged in the indictment.
Remember that the defendant is on trial here only for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment on October 8, 2009, not for being on probation, for being wanted on an active arrest warrant, or for possessing and using illegal drugs. Do not return a guilty verdict unless the government proves the crime charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.