United States v. Hardy
643 F.3d 143
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- December 2006 Chattanooga raid of Hardy's Jones Street house pursuant to a confidential informant tip and a search warrant.
- Crack cocaine (316.84 g) found in a jacket, along with $5,000 cash, a 9mm handgun, .45 ammo, scales, and mail to Hardy.
- Hardy charged with felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute 50 g+ cocaine base, and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
- Gov't gave notice of intent to introduce 404(b) evidence of Hardy's prior crack sales; Hardy moved in limine.
- District court admitted some 404(b) evidence for intent to possess/distribute and gave limiting instructions; Hardy convicted on all counts.
- At sentencing, district court departed upward under 4A1.3 to a 420-month to life range; affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence of prior crack sales was admissible | Hardy argues district court abused discretion under 404(b). | Hardy contends evidence is improper propensity evidence and prejudicial. | Admissible for probative purposes with proper limiting instructions. |
| Proper purpose of 404(b) evidence to show specific intent | Hardy denies evidence shows specific intent to distribute. | Hardy concedes intent is in issue; prior acts probative of intent to distribute. | Evidence probative of specific intent to distribute; proper purpose recognized. |
| Probity/Rule 403 balancing of 404(b) evidence | Hardy asserts district court erred by not weighing prejudice against probative value sufficiently and by overreliance on 404(b). | Hardy contends district court correctly balanced and provided limiting instructions. | Court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudicial effect with instructions. |
| Harmless error from 404(b) admission | Hardy attacks whether admission affected substantial rights given other evidence. | Gov't argues overwhelming other evidence rendered error harmless. | Not harmless error; however the court still affirmed, finding overall guilt overwhelming. |
| Upward departure under 4A1.3 | Hardy challenges length and reasonableness of departure. | Hardy argues departure was improper; record insufficiently represents seriousness. | Upward departure valid; sentence affirmed as substantively and procedurally reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186 (6th Cir. 1994) (permits 404(b) to prove specific intent where crime requires it)
- United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2003) (probity and admissibility framework for 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Mauldin, 109 F.3d 1159 (6th Cir. 1997) (admissibility of previous drug sales to prove possession with intent to distribute)
- United States v. Ayoub, 498 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2007) (prior drug-distribution evidence admissible for intent/identity with limiting instructions)
- United States v. Bell, 516 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2008) (probative value of prior drug convictions limited by similarity/modus operandi)