Evidence — other acts — undue prejudice

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Evidence — other acts — undue prejudice

In a prosecution for identity theft, it was not unduly prejudicial to admit evidence that the defendant faced charges with maximum penalties of 60 years, where those charges provided the motive for the defendant’s actions.

“In Earls’ case, the state court penalties he faced were highly probative as to his motive to flee. Earls was fifty-one years old in 2004, and he was facing a potential sentence that would have likely resulted in him spending the rest of his life in prison. Earls argues that informing the jury of the maximum penalty he faced only invited speculation as to the possible heinous nature of the charges. We acknowledge that this was a possibility. Nevertheless, the length of the penalty itself is exactly what made this evidence probative into Earls’ motive to flee the country. In this case, the district court conducted the Rule 403 balancing test and excluded the fact that Earls’ pending charges involved the sexual assault of a six-year-old. Further, it was made clear during trial that Earls did not face a mandatory minimum penalty. Therefore, the jury was aware that Earls could have received a sentence ranging from probation to sixty years. This balanced presentation of the evidence mitigated any potential risk of unfair prejudice and certainly does not outweigh the probative value of this motive evidence.”

Affirmed.

11-3347 U.S. v. Earls

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Van Bokkelen, J., Bauer, J.