United States v. Baez
Summary Order, not officially reported (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an entrapment defense, a district court acts within its discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 when admitting evidence of a defendant's prior statements, conduct, and convictions to prove predisposition, provided the evidence is probative of a ready willingness to commit similar crimes and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- Atdilon Baez was charged with knowingly possessing a TEC-9 semi-automatic firearm after having been convicted of a felony, and knowingly selling the TEC-9 to a convicted felon.
- Baez indicated that he planned to raise an entrapment defense at trial, which led the Government to seek introduction of predisposition evidence.
- Baez made statements expressing a desire to join a Government informant, Victor Moral, to commit armed robberies and described his plan for doing so.
- Baez sold a .38 caliber revolver to Victor Moral during their first meeting outside of prison.
- Baez had prior convictions in 1989 for possessing a shotgun, in 2002 for possessing a pellet gun, and in 2011 for a weapons offense.
- Baez made a videotaped confession in which he admitted that he had obtained the TEC-9 before ever having met Victor Moral.
- Cell phone data demonstrated that, absent any Government inducement, Baez visited websites offering firearms for sale.
Procedural Posture:
- Atdilon Baez was tried and convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Woods, J.) for knowingly possessing a TEC-9 semi-automatic firearm after a felony conviction and knowingly selling the firearm to another convicted felon.
- During pretrial proceedings and over Baez's objection, the District Court admitted evidence of Baez’s statements, conduct, and prior weapons possession convictions as proof of his predisposition.
- Baez, as Defendant-Appellant, appealed the judgment of the District Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the District Court's evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. The United States of America was the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the District Court abuse its discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 by admitting evidence of Atdilon Baez's statements, conduct, and prior weapons convictions to prove his predisposition to commit the charged firearms offenses, thereby rebutting his entrapment defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Atdilon Baez's statements, conduct, and prior weapons convictions because this evidence was properly admitted under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 to prove his predisposition. The Court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, requiring a finding that the rulings were 'arbitrary and irrational.' Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits the admission of evidence of other crimes or acts for purposes other than to show criminal propensity, such as proving predisposition in entrapment cases. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. The District Court properly admitted Baez's statements regarding armed robberies because they were probative of his predisposition to engage in criminal activity involving firearms and with the informant, Victor Moral. Past conduct, while not needing to be identical, must be 'near enough in kind' to support an inference of predisposition. The Court found these statements not unfairly prejudicial, as they indicated contemplation, not commission, of armed robberies. Evidence of Baez's sale of a .38 caliber revolver to Moral was also properly admitted. While post-inducement conduct, it showed 'prompt availment' of a government-sponsored opportunity, demonstrating a ready willingness and independent choice rather than government persuasion, especially as it occurred at their first meeting outside prison. Finally, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Baez's 1989 shotgun conviction and 2002 pellet gun conviction. Temporal remoteness is not dispositive for probative value, and prior acts are probative if they show 'a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct.' The combination of Baez's three prior weapons convictions (1989, 2002, 2011) demonstrated such a pattern. Even if there were a purported error, the Court concluded it would be harmless given the overwhelming other evidence, including Baez's videotaped confession that he obtained the TEC-9 before meeting Moral, and cell phone data showing he visited firearm websites without government inducement.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the broad discretion afforded to district courts in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence to prove predisposition when an entrapment defense is raised. It clarifies that the 'near enough in kind' standard for predisposition evidence does not demand precise identity between the prior and charged conduct, allowing for a broader scope of related criminal activity. The decision also reiterates that post-inducement conduct can be admissible if it demonstrates 'prompt availment,' emphasizing the defendant's ready willingness over mere chronological proximity. Furthermore, it affirms that even temporally remote or slightly dissimilar prior convictions can be collectively probative if they establish a continuing 'pattern of activity' related to the charged offense.
