Evidence — other acts — harmless error

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Evidence — other acts — harmless error

Even if it was error to admit evidence from a prior heroin conviction that the defendant packaged his heroin in aluminum foil bindles, the error was harmless.

“This evidence that Reed had previously been in possession of heroin packaged in foil bindles was too generic to have anything more than minimal probative value.”

“That said, we review the court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Simon, 727 F.3d 682, 696 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Thornton, 642 F.3d 599, 604 (7th Cir. 2011). We will reverse and order a new trial only if any evidentiary errors are not harmless. Simon, 727 F.3d at 696; Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). Reed’s defense did not truly involve questions of intent, knowledge or mistake in a manner that would make the use of his prior conviction probative on any of these issues. The court’s use of this evidence of similar packaging was therefore questionable under our current case law. But in the context of the extensive list of evidence on which the district court relied to find that Reed exerted ownership over the heroin, we find that any error was harmless. Again, had the evidence come before a jury, we may have come to a different conclusion, but we presume that the court was not unduly influenced by this weak pattern evidence. We ‘can say “with fair assurance” that the verdict was not substantially swayed by the error.’ Miller, 673 F.3d at 701 (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946)).”

Affirmed.

12-3701 U.S. v. Reed

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Rovner, J.