United States v. Hernandez
975 F.2d 1035 (1992)
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, unrelated bad acts is inadmissible to prove intent when its probative value is slight, it is remote in time, the defendant completely denies committing the charged act, and its primary effect is to show a criminal propensity, rendering it substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403.
Facts:
- Xiomaro Hernandez lived with Rodolfo Fernandez in a Washington D.C. apartment.
- An undercover DEA agent arranged to purchase crack cocaine from a dealer named Naikin DeLaCruz Duran (DeLaCruz) on three separate occasions in August and September 1990.
- Before the first two sales, officers observed DeLaCruz entering the apartment building where Hernandez lived.
- Before the third and largest sale, surveillance saw DeLaCruz enter the building and then leave accompanied by Fernandez.
- DeLaCruz testified that for the third sale, Hernandez told him over the phone how much crack she could supply, retrieved the drugs from her bedside table, and handed them to Fernandez to complete the transaction.
- DeLaCruz's wife testified that after her husband's arrest, Hernandez offered to pay his legal fees if he claimed sole responsibility for the drugs.
- A government witness, Romulo DeLeon, testified that more than six months prior to the charged conspiracy, Hernandez told him she knew a special recipe for cooking crack and that she 'used to do that, sell that in New York.'
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Xiomaro Hernandez for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
- The case was tried before a jury in the United States District Court (trial court).
- Over Hernandez's objection, the district court admitted testimony from a witness, Romulo DeLeon, regarding Hernandez's prior unrelated drug activities in New York, ruling it admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent.
- The jury convicted Hernandez on the conspiracy count.
- Hernandez appealed her conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony.
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 a district court commit reversible error by admitting evidence of a defendant's prior, unrelated drug activity under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent, when the defendant unequivocally denies committing the charged offense and the evidence's probative value is substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - Butzner, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court committed reversible error. The admission of prior bad acts evidence under Rule 404(b) was an abuse of discretion because it failed both the circuit's specific test and the general balancing test of Rule 403. The court applied the Fourth Circuit's three-part test from United States v. Rawle, finding the evidence was not relevant, necessary, or sufficiently reliable. Its relevance was minimal because Hernandez's defense was a complete denial of the act, not a claim of lacking criminal intent. The evidence was not necessary because it did not provide context for the charged crime; its primary effect was to suggest a criminal propensity, which is forbidden by Rule 404(b). Furthermore, under Rule 403, the testimony's probative value was slight and substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice—namely, leading the jury to convict based on the belief she was an experienced crack dealer. The error was not harmless because the other evidence against Hernandez was sparse and largely depended on the testimony of cooperating witnesses, and the acquittal of a co-defendant against whom no such evidence was offered suggests the improper testimony likely affected the verdict.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the protective function of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, establishing a strong precedent against using prior bad acts as de facto character evidence. It clarifies that a defendant's general plea of 'not guilty' does not automatically render all prior acts relevant to the issue of intent, particularly when the defense is a complete denial of participation. The case serves as a crucial check on prosecutorial overreach, preventing the government from bolstering a weak case by introducing prejudicial evidence of a defendant's past. For future cases, it underscores that trial courts must conduct a meticulous, on-the-record balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect, and that appellate courts will closely scrutinize the admission of such evidence, especially when it is remote, uncorroborated, and unrelated to the charged offense.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Hernandez