Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Miller

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
2012 WL 763151, 673 F.3d 688, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5091 (2012)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a prior conviction is inadmissible to prove intent for a current charge when its only relevance is to establish a defendant's propensity to commit the crime, especially where intent is not a meaningfully contested issue.


Facts:

  • In 2000, Shariff Miller was convicted of felony possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
  • A witness saw Shariff Miller in possession of a specific semi-automatic pistol in February 2008.
  • In April 2008, police received a tip from a confidential informant regarding Miller.
  • Acting on the tip and a subsequent search warrant, police raided a home where Miller and several others were staying.
  • Police apprehended Miller as he attempted to leave through a side door.
  • A search of the home revealed crack cocaine, a scale, and three guns, including the pistol Miller was seen with in February.
  • The cocaine and the pistol were found in close proximity to Miller's personal papers in a bedroom he was allegedly occupying.

Procedural Posture:

  • Shariff Miller was charged in a federal district court with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and two firearm offenses.
  • Before trial, Miller filed a motion to suppress evidence from the search, which the district court denied.
  • At trial, the government introduced evidence of Miller's 2000 drug conviction under Rule 404(b) to prove intent, and the court admitted it over Miller's objection.
  • A jury convicted Miller on all three counts.
  • The district court sentenced Miller to twenty years in prison.
  • Miller, as the appellant, appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Locked

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 a defendant's eight-year-old conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)'s prohibition on character propensity evidence when the defendant's defense is mere presence and not a lack of intent?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Hamilton

Yes. The admission of Miller's prior drug conviction violated Rule 404(b) because it served only as impermissible character propensity evidence. When a defendant does not meaningfully contest the element of intent, prior acts evidence is relevant to intent only because it implies a propensity to so intend, which is forbidden. Miller's defense was that the drugs were not his, not that he lacked the intent to distribute them if they were his. The only way the 2000 conviction could prove intent in 2008 is through the impermissible inference: 'He intended to do it before, so he must have intended to do it again.' This is a classic propensity argument, the 'once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer' theory, which Rule 404(b) is designed to prevent. The error was not harmless as to the drug charges, as it likely swayed the jury, and those convictions are reversed. The felon-in-possession conviction is affirmed because it was supported by independent evidence, such as Miller's fingerprint on another rifle, and was not tainted by the improper evidence.



Analysis:

This decision significantly tightens the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) in drug prosecutions, pushing back against the routine admission of prior drug convictions to prove intent. It clarifies that a defendant's 'not guilty' plea does not automatically make intent a genuinely disputed issue sufficient to open the door to such prejudicial evidence. The case establishes a more rigorous standard for trial courts, requiring them to scrutinize the prosecution's specific, non-propensity-based theory of relevance before admitting prior bad acts. This precedent will force prosecutors to articulate a clear logical chain of reasoning, beyond mere similarity of offense, and will likely reduce the use of prior convictions as a proxy for proving the elements of a current charge.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Miller (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"