United States v. Durrell Smith
725 F.3d 340
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Durrell Smith was on trial for threatening federal officers with a gun and related offenses.
- Prosecution introduced 2008 drug dealing evidence from the same corner to prove motive.
- District Court admitted the Rule 404(b) evidence after Huddleston steps; trial proceeded.
- Evidence showed a 2008 heroin sale at the corner; no firearms were involved in 2008 act.
- Jury was instructed the 404(b) evidence was limited in use to motive; closing arguments emphasized turf.
- Smith was convicted and sentenced; court later vacated Counts 1-2 on appeal and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence had proper purpose | Smith; 404(b) used to show character (propensity). | Smith; 404(b) cannot be used to infer motive without non-propensity chain. | No proper 404(b) purpose; reversible error. |
| Whether there was a prohibited propensity inference | Gov't; evidence shows turf motive, not character. | Smith; inference from past drug dealing to current conduct violates no-link rule. | Evidence improperly connected past act to current motive. |
| Whether the Rule 403 balancing was adequate | Probative value outweighed prejudice. | Prejudice overshadowed probative value given lack of firearms in 2008 act. | District Court failed to provide adequate Huddleston-based balancing; reversible error. |
| Whether the error was harmless | Other evidence supported conviction; error likely harmless. | No harmlessness; cumulative effect significant. | Error not harmless; reversed and remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (establishes four-step Huddleston framework for Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Sampson, 980 F.2d 883 (3d Cir. 1992) (no-link requirement; chain of inferences must avoid propensity inference)
- United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010) (limits on 404(b) evidence; proper purposes and limiting instructions)
- United States v. Murray, 103 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 1997) (discussion of 404(b) line between admissible motive and prohibited propensity)
- United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 2009) (propensity-inference concerns when government emphasizes prior acts)