Davies v. Benbenek, 836 F.3d 887

In June 2010 police responded to a 911 domestic-disturbance call at Dan Davies’s home; officers forcibly entered and found Davies, a paraplegic, in his wheelchair.
Officers searched the home and discovered unspecified illegal items in Davies’s bedroom; Davies asked officers to blame his nephew, which they refused.
Davies became agitated, spat on Officer Karlen Benbenek, made a remark about her tongue piercing, then threw himself from his wheelchair and ended up on the floor with a fractured femur.
Davies sued Benbenek under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force (claim that Benbenek grabbed and punched him).
At trial the court admitted testimony that Davies said he had “sued before” and that certain items were found and that he became upset when officers refused to blame his nephew; no descriptions of the items or prior lawsuit outcomes were admitted.
The jury returned a verdict for Officer Benbenek; Davies appealed the district court’s evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether testimony that Davies said he had “sued before” was admissible	Davies: testimony was improper character/other-act evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403	Benbenek: testimony was contemporaneous statement about Davies’ conduct and relevant to credibility and circumstances, not propensity evidence	Court: admissible — not 404(b) other-act evidence and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice under Rule 403
Whether testimony that officers found unspecified items and Davies’ reaction to refusal to blame his nephew was admissible	Davies: testimony improperly suggested other wrongful acts and was unfairly prejudicial	Benbenek: testimony was part of the narrative of events and relevant to explaining Davies’ escalating agitation and how he fell	Court: admissible — integral to the disputed encounter (not 404(b)), relevant to why Davies fell, and nondetailed nature of items limited prejudice

United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Bogan, 267 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2001) (definition of unfairly prejudicial evidence under Rule 403)
United States v. LeShore, 543 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (deference to district court on Rule 403 balancing)
Agushi v. Duerr, 196 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 1999) (statements or acts contemporaneous with alleged excessive force are part of the case and not covered by Rule 404(b))
United States v. Strong, 485 F.3d 985 (7th Cir. 2007) (examples of what is not inherently inflammatory for Rule 403 purposes)