United States v. William B. Hite
64 Fed. R. Serv. 17, 364 F.3d 874, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7207 (2004)
Rule of Law:
Evidence of prior acts is admissible as 'inextricably intertwined' rather than character evidence when it tends to prove a specific element of the charged crime, such as knowing possession. Additionally, to admit hearsay under the statement against penal interest exception, the proponent must demonstrate a good-faith, reasonable effort to procure the declarant's attendance at trial.
Facts:
- Hite was on probation for prior convictions and living with his grandmother.
- Probation officers conducted an unannounced home visit after Hite missed a mandatory meeting.
- Officers observed a knife and crossbow in plain view in Hite's bedroom, which constituted a probation violation.
- A subsequent full search of the bedroom revealed marijuana paraphernalia and two firearms—a sawed-off rifle and a revolver—hidden in a backpack.
- Hite denied owning the guns, claiming they belonged to his cousin, Timothy Bickers, but simultaneously asked officers to 'take care' of them because they were 'family heirlooms.'
- Years prior to this search, Hite's ex-fiancée witnessed him holding the specific revolver, spinning its chamber, and pulling the trigger.
- Following Hite's arrest, his father and a family friend claimed that the cousin, Bickers, had admitted to them that the guns were actually his.
- The cousin, Bickers, did not appear at trial to claim ownership, and Hite's team made limited efforts to locate him.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Hite on two counts of firearms violations.
- Hite filed a motion in limine to exclude his ex-fiancée's testimony regarding his past handling of the gun.
- The government filed a motion in limine to exclude hearsay testimony from defense witnesses regarding the cousin's alleged ownership of the guns.
- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted the government's motion to exclude the hearsay and denied Hite's motion to exclude the ex-fiancée's testimony (with limiting instructions).
- The jury convicted Hite on both counts.
- Hite filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1) Is testimony regarding a defendant's prior handling of a firearm admissible as inextricably intertwined evidence to prove knowing possession? 2) Does a defense failure to serve a subpoena or contact law enforcement to locate a witness constitute a failure to prove 'unavailability' for hearsay exceptions?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Coffey
No, the district court did not err regarding the prior acts testimony, and yes, the hearsay was properly excluded. Regarding the ex-fiancée's testimony, the Court reasoned that evidence concerning the chronological unfolding of events or circumstances surrounding a crime is not 'other acts' evidence under Rule 404(b). Because the government had to prove 'knowing possession' of the firearms, the witness's testimony that she previously saw Hite manipulating the specific revolver was 'inextricably intertwined' with the charged offense as it demonstrated his ability and intent to control the weapon. Regarding the hearsay issue, the Court held that the defense failed to meet the burden of proving the declarant (Bickers) was unavailable. The defense merely asked family members about his whereabouts and did not attempt to serve a subpoena or contact local law enforcement, which does not constitute a reasonable, good-faith effort. Furthermore, the hearsay statements lacked trustworthiness because Bickers had previously signed a legal document claiming other seized items but omitting the guns.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Seventh Circuit's 'inextricably intertwined' doctrine, which provides prosecutors a pathway to admit evidence of a defendant's prior conduct without triggering the restrictive character evidence rules of Rule 404(b), provided the conduct directly relates to an element of the current crime (like possession). It clarifies that proving 'knowing possession' allows for historical evidence showing the defendant's familiarity with the specific weapon. Additionally, the decision sets a high bar for the 'unavailability' requirement in hearsay exceptions. It puts defense attorneys on notice that casual attempts to locate a witness are insufficient; a 'reasonable means' effort requires formal legal steps, such as subpoenas or seeking assistance from law enforcement, before a court will allow hearsay statements in lieu of live testimony.
