United States v. Mare, 668 F.3d 35

Mare owned and operated a Boston beauty salon; a 2005 fire caused damage and arson was suspected to secure insurance proceeds.
Mare was indicted for attempted arson, mail fraud, and use of fire to commit mail fraud based on the fire and alleged schemes.
Correia, a former stylist, testified Mare had admitted prior arson in 2000 and discussed past insurance payouts to fund moves.
Mare moved to exclude Correia’s testimony under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403; the district court admitted it as intrinsic to intent.
The court prevented corroborating evidence about the 2000 fire and instructed the jury Correia’s testimony linked Mare to arson; Mare sought mistrial over polygraph questioning.
Jury found Mare guilty of attempted arson and acquitted on the mail fraud charges; Mare appeals the evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Correia testimony under Rule 404(b) and 403	Mare argues testimony is Rule 404(b) bad acts evidence and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403.	Mare contends intrinsic relevance to intent negates Rule 404(b) concerns and 403 prejudice is high.	Admission not an abuse; intrinsic evidence doctrine and limited 403 balancing sustain it.
Whether Correia testimony was properly limited to intrinsic evidence of intent	Testimony should not be used to prove bad character; only intent from the prior act.	Testimony provides motive/intent relevant to charged arson and fraud.	Yes; intrinsic relevance supported, and 403 prejudice not outweighs probative value.
District court's handling of Rule 403/404(b) and limiting instructions	Lack of explicit limiting instruction could invite improper inferences.	Judge correctly weighed probative value; Mare declined limiting instruction, affecting only admission options.	No abuse; court adequately balanced and minimized prejudice.
Mistrial for polygraph inquiry; adequacy of curative instruction	Prosecutor’s polygraph inquiry tainted the trial; mistrial warranted.	Curative instruction sufficed; taint not irremediable.	No mistrial required; curative instruction approved.

Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2004) (intrinsic evidence not limited by Rule 404(b))
Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2000) (propensity prejudice concerns under Rule 403)
Utter, 97 F.3d 509 (11th Cir. 1996) (taint from 404(b) evidence not reversible in similar context)
Fields, 871 F.2d 198 (1st Cir. 1989) (remoteness of acts affects probative value under 404(b))
Rodríguez-Berríos, 573 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2009) (curative instruction suffices; mistrial not automatic remedy)
Lugo Guerrero, 524 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (absence of limiting instruction and impact on juror considerations)