United States v. Beechum
582 F.2d 898 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of an extrinsic offense is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove a defendant's criminal intent if it is relevant to an issue other than character and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. The government need only present sufficient evidence under Rule 104(b) for a jury to find that the defendant committed the extrinsic offense, not prove it by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- Orange Jell Beechum was a substitute letter carrier for the United States Postal Service.
- Suspecting Beechum of rifling mail, postal inspectors planted a test letter in a mailbox on his route containing a 1890 silver dollar and currency.
- An inspector observed Beechum retrieve the mail and later discovered the test letter had been opened and resealed, with the silver dollar and currency missing.
- Upon apprehension, inspectors found the silver dollar in Beechum's hip pocket.
- A search of Beechum's wallet revealed two unsigned Sears credit cards that were not issued to him.
- Evidence indicated these credit cards had been mailed approximately ten months earlier to two different addresses on routes Beechum had serviced.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Government indicted Orange Jell Beechum in federal district court (trial court) for one count of unlawfully possessing a silver dollar stolen from the mail.
- Before trial, defense counsel filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the credit cards found in Beechum's possession.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Beechum of the charged offense.
- Beechum (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals heard the case, but the court subsequently granted a rehearing en banc to reconsider the circuit's doctrine on extrinsic offense evidence.
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) permit the admission of extrinsic offense evidence to prove a defendant's intent, provided the evidence is relevant under Rule 401 and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice under Rule 403?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, J.
Yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits the admission of extrinsic offense evidence to prove intent if it satisfies a two-step test. First, the evidence must be relevant under Rule 401 to an issue other than the defendant's character, which requires only that there is sufficient evidence under Rule 104(b) for a jury to find the defendant committed the extrinsic act. Second, under Rule 403, the evidence's probative value must not be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. This framework overrules the stricter requirements of United States v. Broadway, which demanded that the physical elements of the extrinsic and charged offenses be identical and that the extrinsic offense be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, Beechum's possession of the credit cards was relevant to rebut his claim of innocent intent regarding the silver dollar, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find he wrongfully possessed the cards, and its high probative value on the central issue of intent was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
Dissenting - Goldberg, J.
No. The majority's interpretation of Rule 404(b) allows the exception for proving intent to swallow the general rule against admitting character evidence. The distinction between proving a propensity to have unlawful intent and proving a bad character is a meaningless metaphysical exercise. This new test replaces Broadway's objective comparison of physical elements with a subjective, ill-defined psycho-analysis of whether the defendant was 'indulging in the same state of mind.' Furthermore, the majority's weak standard of proof creates an anomaly with Rules 608 and 609, which impose stricter limits on admitting evidence of prior acts for impeachment. The Broadway doctrine provided necessary protection against the extraordinary prejudice of extrinsic offense evidence and should have been preserved.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally changed the standard for admitting extrinsic offense evidence in the Fifth Circuit, replacing the rigid, element-matching 'Broadway' test with a more flexible two-part balancing test derived from the Federal Rules of Evidence. It significantly lowered the prosecution's burden for admitting 'other acts' evidence by moving from a 'clear and convincing' standard to the lower 'sufficient evidence for a jury to find' standard of Rule 104(b). By shifting the focus to the Rule 403 balancing of probative value against prejudice, the ruling expanded trial court discretion and made it easier for prosecutors to introduce evidence of a defendant's prior wrongs to prove intent, thereby impacting criminal trial strategy.
