Opinion
Case No. 1:07-cr-048.
August 2, 2007
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the Court is Defendant Burdon Lester's Motion in Limine filed on July 19, 2007. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
See 404United States v. Voegtlin437 F.3d 741745United States v. Bowman798 F.2d 333337
Evidence of other assaultive behavior by a defendant is generally admissible pursuant to 404(b) where the defendant claims lack of intent, accident, or self-defense at trial. See United States v. Haukaas, 172 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding admissible the introduction of evidence of a previous assault where the defendant placed the element of intent into issue by contending that he was intoxicated at the time of the stabbing and had advanced several other defenses including accident and self-defense). Further, "[w]here intent is an element of the crime charged, evidence of other acts tending to establish that element is generally admissible." United States v. Weddell, 890 F.2d 106, 107-108 (8th Cir. 1989). Nevertheless, the broad principles of admissibility set forth in Rule 404(b) do not mandate that such evidence be admitted without consideration of its prejudicial impact.
Lester's sole argument for the exclusion of the prior bad acts evidence is that the danger of prejudice to Lester significantly outweighs any possible probative value such evidence may have. Based upon a preliminary review of this case and, particularly, the Rule 404(b) evidence which the defendant seeks to exclude, the Court finds that the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. Further, any potential for prejudice may be mitigated by a limiting instruction reminding the jurors that they may consider this evidence only for a purpose permissible under Rule 404(b), not to decide whether Lester is guilty of a charged offense. See United States v. Walker, 470 F.3d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir. 2006) (providing that "a limiting instruction diminishes the danger of unfair prejudice arising from the admission of the evidence."); United States v. Spears, 469 F.3d 1166, 1170 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding a limiting instruction adequate to guard against potential prejudice).
The Defendant's motion in limine to exclude Rule 404(b) evidence is DENIED.