United States v. Augustin Mora Carrillo
37 Fed. R. Serv. 1273, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 286, 981 F.2d 772 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a defendant's prior extrinsic acts is admissible to prove identity under a 'modus operandi' theory only if the prior acts are so highly similar to the charged offense and so unique from common practice as to mark the crime as the defendant's distinct 'handiwork' or 'signature'.
Facts:
- On January 8, 1991, undercover detective Leo Alonzo received a tip that a man named 'Tito' was selling heroin near the Three Kings Lounge in San Antonio.
- A man on the street pointed to another man, later identified as Augustin Mora Carrillo, and identified him as 'Tito'.
- Alonzo approached Carrillo and asked for a 'veinte,' a street term for twenty dollars' worth of narcotics.
- Alonzo gave Carrillo twenty dollars.
- Carrillo then took a balloon containing cocaine and heroin from his mouth and handed it to Alonzo.
- The entire transaction lasted approximately thirty seconds.
Procedural Posture:
- Augustin Mora Carrillo was charged in district court with distribution of cocaine and heroin.
- Before trial, Carrillo filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of two prior instances of selling or possessing heroin.
- The district court denied the motion, ruling that the evidence would be admissible if Carrillo made his identity an issue.
- At trial, Carrillo raised an alibi defense, claiming mistaken identity.
- The district court then permitted the government to introduce testimony from two police officers about Carrillo's prior extrinsic offenses.
- A jury convicted Carrillo.
- Carrillo appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the evidence of his prior acts.
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 the admission of evidence of a defendant's prior drug sales violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) when those sales share common, but not unique or distinctive, characteristics with the charged offense, and the evidence is offered to prove identity under a 'modus operandi' theory?
Opinions:
Majority - DeMoss, Circuit Judge
Yes, the admission of evidence of a defendant's prior drug sales violates Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) under these circumstances. For evidence of prior acts to be admissible to prove identity under the modus operandi or 'handiwork' exception, the acts must be highly similar to the charged offense and sufficiently unique to earmark the crime as the work of the accused. In this case, the extrinsic acts—selling heroin in balloons near the same location—were not unique. The government's own witness, Detective Alonzo, testified that packaging narcotics in a balloon and dispensing it from the mouth is a 'very common' practice for street dealers to avoid detection. Because the method was not distinctive, the evidence of Carrillo's prior sales did not serve the permissible purpose of proving identity but instead served the impermissible purpose of suggesting Carrillo has a bad character and acted in conformity with that character. This is precisely what Rule 404(b) prohibits.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strict standard for admitting 'other acts' evidence to prove identity under Rule 404(b). It clarifies that mere similarity between the charged crime and prior acts is insufficient; the method must possess a 'signature' quality that distinguishes it from the way such crimes are commonly committed. This decision limits the government's ability to use the 'modus operandi' exception as a backdoor to introduce propensity evidence, thereby protecting defendants from being convicted based on their past criminal record rather than on the evidence of the specific crime charged. Future cases involving the identity exception will require a more rigorous showing of uniqueness, not just a pattern of similar criminal conduct.
