United States v. Smalls
2014 WL 1663081, 752 F.3d 1227, 94 Fed. R. Serv. 355 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's prior act is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as "signature quality" evidence to prove identity if the prior act and the charged crime share a single, highly unique, and distinctive characteristic, such as a specific plan to use a victim's medical condition as a cover-up.
Facts:
- Paul Smalls, a former corrections officer, was incarcerated at the Doña Ana County Detention Center.
- Approximately five months before the events in question, Smalls assaulted his then-wife, who suffered from asthma.
- During the assault, Smalls prevented his wife from accessing her inhaler during an asthma attack and stated, 'Go ahead and just die. And that way... it will just be natural causes and I’ll be done with you.'
- Smalls shared a cell with Phil Gantz, Glenn Dell Cook, and Walter Melgar-Diaz.
- Gantz was a known government informant who was cooperating with federal authorities in a drug trafficking investigation and suffered from asthma.
- According to Cook and Melgar, Smalls identified Gantz as a 'rat' and proposed a plan to kill him and make it appear as though he died from an asthma attack.
- On December 30, 2004, Smalls, Cook, and Melgar murdered Gantz in their cell; Melgar held a plastic bag over Gantz's head while Smalls restrained his legs and Cook held down his chest and arms.
- An autopsy later revealed that Gantz died from carotid strangulation, not suffocation or an asthma attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Smalls was charged in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico with five federal offenses related to the murder of Phil Gantz.
- Before trial, the government moved to admit testimony from Smalls's ex-wife about a prior assault, arguing it was 'signature quality' evidence under FRE 404(b).
- The district court granted the motion, allowing the testimony to be introduced at trial.
- A jury convicted Smalls on all five counts.
- Smalls, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, challenging several of the district court's evidentiary rulings and other alleged errors.
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 defendant's prior statement about using his asthmatic ex-wife's condition as a natural-causes cover-up for her potential death constitute 'signature quality' evidence admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove identity in a subsequent murder trial where the plan was to kill the victim and blame it on his asthma?
Opinions:
Majority - Tymkovich, Circuit Judge
Yes. A defendant's prior statement revealing a plan to use a victim's asthma as a cover-up for a death is sufficiently unusual and distinctive to be admissible as 'signature quality' evidence under Rule 404(b) to prove identity. The court reasoned that Rule 404(b) permits evidence of prior acts to be used for purposes other than proving character, such as establishing a unique modus operandi that points to the defendant's identity. The court determined that a plan to use asthma as an excuse for a victim's death is so 'unusual and distinctive' that it constitutes a signature. This is true even if the prior act and the charged crime have different circumstances and motivations; a single, highly unique shared characteristic can be sufficient. The fact that Gantz was ultimately strangled rather than suffocated according to the original plan does not render the evidence inadmissible, as it still demonstrates a similar and distinctive plan of action.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'signature quality' or 'modus operandi' exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). It establishes that the distinctiveness of a shared characteristic between a prior act and a charged crime can be more important than the number of similarities. By holding that a single, highly unique element is sufficient, the court lowers the threshold for admitting such evidence, providing prosecutors a stronger basis to introduce prior acts that might otherwise be excluded. This precedent emphasizes that the analysis should focus on whether the shared features are so unusual as to be like a signature, not on a simple tally of commonalities.
