United States v. Richard D. Robinson
161 F.3d 463, 1998 WL 796733 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a subsequent crime is admissible in a trial for a prior crime to prove identity through a unique modus operandi and to show consciousness of guilt, provided its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- On April 8, 1997, a man robbed the Americana Bank in Anderson, Indiana.
- The robber wore an orange ski mask with a single opening, brown coveralls, vaulted over the teller counter, and carried a distinctive 'Louis Vuitton'-brand duffle bag and a handgun.
- The robber fled the scene in a blue Chevrolet Cavalier.
- Ten days later, on April 18, 1997, a man robbed the Harrington Bank in Fishers, Indiana, approximately 25 miles away, using an identical method: orange ski mask, vaulting the counter, and fleeing in a blue Chevrolet Cavalier.
- Richard Robinson was apprehended by police shortly after the second robbery following a high-speed chase in his wife's blue Chevrolet Cavalier.
- A search of Robinson's vehicle recovered an orange ski mask, the 'Louis Vuitton' duffle bag containing money from the second robbery, and a handgun.
- Robinson’s former coworker testified that a pair of brown work coveralls, of the type worn during the first robbery and which Robinson frequently borrowed, were missing.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Richard Robinson on charges related to two separate armed bank robberies.
- Robinson pleaded guilty to the charges stemming from the second robbery (Harrington Bank) but went to trial for the first robbery (Americana Bank) in the U.S. District Court.
- Prior to trial, the government moved to admit evidence from the second robbery; the District Court held an evidentiary hearing and ruled the evidence was admissible over Robinson's objections.
- A jury convicted Robinson of the armed robbery of Americana Bank.
- Robinson, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the trial court erred in admitting the 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 the admission of evidence of a defendant's subsequent, similar crime, to which he pleaded guilty, for the purpose of proving identity (modus operandi) and consciousness of guilt for the currently charged crime, violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, Circuit Judge
No. The admission of evidence of a defendant's subsequent, similar crime does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) when used for a permissible purpose such as proving identity or consciousness of guilt. The court applied a four-prong test for admissibility under Rule 404(b). First, the evidence was not offered to show criminal propensity, but for the valid purposes of establishing identity via modus operandi and showing consciousness of guilt. Second, the two robberies were remarkably similar in their unique details (orange mask, vaulting, distinctive bag, getaway car) and close in time (10 days) and location (25 miles), making the evidence highly relevant. Third, Robinson’s guilty plea to the second robbery sufficiently proved he committed the similar act. Fourth, the probative value of this evidence in identifying the perpetrator of the first robbery and explaining the circumstances of his arrest was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, which was mitigated by a limiting jury instruction.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the modus operandi exception under FRE 404(b), demonstrating that a subsequent crime can be powerful evidence to prove identity in a trial for a prior offense if the methods are 'sufficiently idiosyncratic.' It also broadens the concept of 'consciousness of guilt,' allowing a defendant's flight from a second crime to be interpreted as consciousness of guilt for a prior, similar crime, especially when evidence linking the defendant to both offenses is present. This provides prosecutors a significant tool to connect a defendant to a series of crimes by establishing a unique criminal signature, even when direct evidence for one of the crimes is weaker.
