United States v. Fawbush
634 F.3d 420
8th Cir.2011Background
- Fawbush, a minister, was charged with seven counts of aggravated sexual abuse involving two children in SD on a mission church site.
- The victims, D.D. (3) and A.L. (4), were babysat by Fawbush’s family in 1987; examinations later indicated abuse.
- D.D. disclosed abuse to two other babysitters; a gynecological exam confirmed abuse; charges: four counts against D.D. and three counts against A.L.
- At trial, the government was allowed to admit testimony from Fawbush’s two adult daughters about past abuse; jury instructed to use it only for motive/intent/plan, not identity.
- The jury convicted on all seven counts; the district court limited use of the daughters’ testimony to non-identity issues.
- Fawbush appealed, challenging the admissibility of the daughters’ testimony under Rule 404(b) as prejudicial and not probative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 404(b) evidence was properly admitted | Fawbush asserts prejudice from prior abuse evidence. | Government contends evidence is admissible for motive/intent/plan. | Abuse of discretion; improperly admitted. |
| Whether prior acts were relevant to material issues | Daughters' acts relate to identity or plan. | Acts show opportunity, preparation, or motive. | Not relevant to material issues; improper use. |
| Whether admission violated Rule 403 by prejudicial effect | Evidence would be probative of intent or plan. | Probative value outweighs prejudice. | Prejudice outweighed probative value; reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Estabrook, 774 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. 1985) (test for admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. St. Pierre, 812 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1987) (limited 404(b) evidence; relates to opportunity/intent within close time frame)
- United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336 (8th Cir. 1986) (evidence probative when closely connected to charged acts)
- United States v. Harvey, 845 F.2d 760 (8th Cir. 1988) (reversible error for remote uncharged acts)
- United States v. Marshall, 683 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir. 1982) (reversal when questioned evidence bears no relation to issues)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (Supreme Court, 1988) (preponderance standard for prior acts; not required to be proven beyond reasonable doubt)