United States v. Dwight Mundle
700 F. App'x 70
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- In January 2015, Dwight Mundle stayed at his mother Sonia Green’s Florida home and engaged in days-long abusive, menacing conduct (demanding money, breaking furniture, displaying a gun) and repeatedly threatened family members.
- On January 23, Mundle’s sister Anika called to check on Sonia; during those calls Mundle made explicit threats to kill Anika and his stepfather and to harm his mother.
- Mundle was indicted on two counts: transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), based on the January 23 calls; and using/possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
- The government moved in limine to admit testimony about Mundle’s uncharged conduct during the week; the district court granted the motion and admitted testimony from Sonia, the stepfather, and Anika about the surrounding events.
- At trial Mundle was convicted on the threat count and acquitted on the § 924(c) count; he was sentenced to 27 months and appealed, arguing admission of the uncharged-conduct evidence was erroneous and unduly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged-conduct evidence | Government: background evidence was inextricably intertwined with the charged calls and probative of the threats' veracity and context | Mundle: the evidence was not inextricably intertwined and was unfairly prejudicial (effectively tried for kidnapping) | Court: Admission proper — evidence was inextricably intertwined, necessary to complete the story, and probative outweighed prejudice |
| Probative value re: intent/perception under § 875(c) | Govt: ongoing aggression supported that communications would be perceived as real threats | Mundle: calls standing alone insufficient; background improperly used to prove propensity | Court: Background supported inference that threats were meant and would be viewed as threats; admissible to prove elements of § 875(c) |
| Relevance of firearm evidence to § 924(c) count | Govt: Sonia’s testimony about the gun bore on possession during the charged episode | Mundle: admission invited prejudice given later acquittal on § 924(c) | Court: Firearm testimony was directly relevant to § 924(c) element and properly admitted |
| Rule 403 balancing (unfair prejudice vs probative value) | Govt: probative value of context and coherence outweighed any prejudice | Mundle: prejudice substantially outweighed probative value | Court: District court did not abuse discretion in its Rule 403 balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- Carboni v. United States, 204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir.) (uncharged conduct admissible if same transaction, inextricably intertwined, or necessary to complete the story)
- Gonzalez v. United States, 110 F.3d 936 (2d Cir.) (background evidence may explain intent and context)
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (mens rea considerations for § 875(c) — transmission for purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge it will be viewed as a threat)
- Bermudez v. United States, 529 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.) (district court has broad discretion in Rule 403 balancing)
- Ansaldi v. United States, 372 F.3d 118 (2d Cir.) (district court best positioned to balance probative value against unfair prejudice)
- Mercado v. United States, 573 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (affirming deference to district court’s evidentiary balancing)