Huddleston v. United States
485 U.S. 681 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When offering evidence of a defendant's prior 'other acts' under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the trial court is not required to make a preliminary finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act. Instead, such evidence is admissible if there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor.
Facts:
- Between April 11 and 15, 1985, a shipment of over 32,000 Memorex videocassette tapes was stolen in South Holland, Illinois.
- On April 17, 1985, Guy Rufus Huddleston contacted a store manager in Ypsilanti, Michigan, seeking to sell a large quantity of new Memorex tapes for the unusually low price of $2.75 to $3.00 per tape, assuring her they were not stolen.
- Huddleston ultimately arranged the sale of 5,000 of the stolen tapes.
- In a separate transaction in February 1985, Huddleston sold new 12-inch televisions to a record store owner for $28 each.
- In another separate transaction in May 1985, Huddleston offered to sell a large quantity of stolen Amana appliances to an undercover FBI agent.
- Huddleston testified that all the merchandise—the tapes, televisions, and appliances—had been provided by a man named Leroy Wesby and that he had no knowledge that any of the goods were stolen.
Procedural Posture:
- Guy Rufus Huddleston was charged in U.S. District Court (trial court) with selling and possessing stolen goods.
- At trial, over Huddleston's objection, the court allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of his involvement in transactions with allegedly stolen televisions and appliances to prove his knowledge.
- A jury convicted Huddleston on the possession count.
- Huddleston (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- A panel of the Sixth Circuit initially reversed the conviction, holding the evidence about the televisions was improperly admitted.
- Upon rehearing, the same court, applying a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Huddleston's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the proper standard for admitting evidence under FRE 404(b).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) require a trial court to make a preliminary finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant committed a prior 'similar act' before admitting evidence of that act for a purpose such as proving knowledge?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) does not require a court to make a preliminary factual finding that a defendant committed a prior act before the evidence is submitted to the jury. The admissibility of such evidence is governed by the standard of conditional relevancy under Rule 104(b), which means the evidence should be admitted if the trial court determines there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditional fact—that the defendant committed the similar act—is true. The text and legislative history of Rule 404(b) show an emphasis on admissibility and do not contemplate a preliminary finding by the judge under Rule 104(a). Protections against unfair prejudice are provided not by a preliminary judicial finding, but by other rules: the requirement that the evidence be offered for a proper purpose (Rule 404(b)), the relevancy requirement (Rule 402/104(b)), the balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect (Rule 403), and the availability of a limiting instruction to the jury (Rule 105).
Analysis:
Huddleston resolves a significant circuit split, establishing a uniform and relatively low threshold for the admission of 'other acts' evidence under FRE 404(b). By classifying the issue as one of conditional relevance under Rule 104(b) rather than preliminary admissibility under Rule 104(a), the Court empowers the jury as the ultimate finder of fact. This decision makes it easier for prosecutors to introduce evidence of a defendant's past conduct to prove elements like knowledge or intent, while relying on other evidentiary rules, particularly Rule 403's balancing test and Rule 105's limiting instructions, to protect the defendant from unfair prejudice.
Unlock the full brief for Huddleston v. United States