United States v. Victor Angelini
10 Fed. R. Serv. 876, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18984, 678 F.2d 380 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a), a defendant's character for being a law-abiding person is a pertinent trait of character, and evidence of this trait is admissible to suggest the defendant acted in conformity with that character and was less likely to have committed the charged offense.
Facts:
- DEA Special Agent Keefe, working undercover, met with Samuel Jacobs, who informed him of a new drug source from Florida.
- Jacobs arranged for Keefe to meet the source on October 14, 1980.
- At the meeting, Victor Angelini was introduced as the drug source.
- Agent Keefe testified that Angelini stated he could obtain various drugs, asked about a drug sample he had given Jacobs, and quoted prices for drug shipments.
- Angelini testified, denying Keefe's account of the meeting and stating that while drugs may have been discussed generally, he did not engage in criminal activity.
- Angelini's wife also testified that he was not involved in drug trafficking.
Procedural Posture:
- Victor Angelini was prosecuted by the United States in federal district court for possession and distribution of a controlled substance.
- During the jury trial, Angelini sought to introduce testimony from three character witnesses that he was law-abiding and truthful.
- The district court excluded the testimony, ruling that the trait of law-abidingness was not relevant.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Angelini was convicted.
- Angelini (as appellant) appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing the district court erred in excluding his character 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 a criminal defendant's character for 'law-abidingness' constitute a 'pertinent trait of his character' that is admissible evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Levin H. Campbell
Yes. The trait of law-abidingness is a pertinent character trait admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a). The court reasoned that 'pertinent' under Rule 404(a) is synonymous with 'relevant' under Rule 401, meaning the evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable. Evidence that Angelini was a law-abiding person would tend to make it less likely that he would knowingly break the law. Citing precedent like Michelson v. United States, the court distinguished this specific trait from inadmissible evidence of 'general good character,' concluding that both common law tradition and the intent behind Rule 404(a) support the admission of evidence regarding law-abidingness. The exclusion of this evidence was not harmless error and warranted a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of admissible character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a), establishing 'law-abidingness' as a specific and pertinent trait, not merely inadmissible 'general good character.' It affirms that a defendant can use their reputation for following the law as substantive evidence to create reasonable doubt about their guilt. This precedent strengthens a defendant's ability to present a complete defense by allowing them to argue that the alleged criminal act is inconsistent with their established character.
