Makia Smith v. Baltimore City Police Dep't
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19394
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- On March 8, 2012, Makia Smith was arrested after she confronted Baltimore officers who were arresting a juvenile; Smith alleged officers battered and unlawfully arrested her while she filmed the scene. Charges were later nolled.
- Smith sued Officers Church and Campbell and Baltimore City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland law alleging excessive force, false arrest, battery, First and Fourth Amendment violations, and emotional damages. Trial proceeded against the two officers; Monell claims were conditioned on a finding of constitutional harm.
- Before trial, the first district judge granted Smith’s motion in limine excluding reference to her three prior arrests (no convictions). The case was reassigned to a new judge before trial.
- At trial, after testimony about Smith’s emotional distress, defense counsel asked whether this was Smith’s “first rodeo,” eliciting that she had been arrested before; the court overruled objections and allowed limited questioning. Redirect elicited details about the prior arrests.
- The jury found for the officers on all counts. Smith appealed, arguing reversible error from admission of her prior arrests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior arrests under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | Prior arrests were irrelevant to damages and inadmissible; admitting them unfairly prejudiced Smith. | Prior arrests were relevant to impeachment and to show the extent/causes of emotional distress (damages). | Reversed: prior arrests were irrelevant to damages here, primarily served character/credibility purposes, and admission was prejudicial. |
| Whether limiting instruction cured any prejudice | No; instruction was inadequate and did not confine jury to proper use. | The judge limited use to damages and warned jury not to use arrests for credibility. | Instruction was insufficient; prejudice remained. |
| Whether error was harmless | Error was not harmless because trial was a credibility-driven he-said/she-said dispute and prior arrests likely affected verdict. | Admission was narrow and harmless given overall evidence. | Not harmless; reversible error and remand for new trial. |
| Proper standard for admitting prior-act evidence in § 1983 emotional-distress cases | Apply Rule 404(b) four-part test; relevance to damages must be more than tenuous. | Prior-arrest evidence can be probative of emotional distress and impeachment. | Reinforced four-part 404(b) test; prior arrests here lacked probative value and unfairly prejudiced plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2010) (district-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2009) (harmless-error review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Madden, 38 F.3d 747 (4th Cir. 1994) (test for harmlessness where Rule 404(b) error occurred)
- Nelson v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2016) (reversible error for admitting prior arrests to undercut claimed emotional distress)
- Sanchez v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing mere arrests from allegations of excessive force)