United States v. Matthew Berckmann, 971 F.3d 999

On Oct. 18, 2017, at Hosmer Grove Campground (Haleakala National Park, Maui), Matthew Berckmann pushed his wife to the ground, took a large kitchen knife, straddled her, placed his wrist across her throat and held her for several minutes; witnesses called 911 and police arrested him.
Two other incidents involving assaults on the same wife occurred previously (Oct. 2016, New Jersey) and subsequently (Dec. 2017, Waikiki), each observed by third parties and resulting in police intervention.
Berckmann was indicted on federal counts: (1) assault with a dangerous weapon (knife), and (2) assault of a spouse by attempted strangulation, under 18 U.S.C. § 113.
The government sought to admit evidence of the New Jersey and Waikiki assaults under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent; the district court admitted them with limiting instructions.
At trial defense maintained no assault occurred; the jury convicted on both counts and the court sentenced Berckmann to 41 months. Berckmann appealed, arguing principally that admission of the other-act evidence was improper and unfairly prejudicial.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the other-act evidence admissible to prove intent and not barred as improper propensity evidence, and that any prejudice was mitigated by limiting instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b)	Government: prior and subsequent assaults on the same victim were admissible to prove intent/motive and the relationship history	Berckmann: those incidents were impermissible propensity evidence and should be excluded	Admitted: prior acts against the same victim were probative of intent and fit within Rule 404(b) principles
Unfair prejudice under Rule 403	Government: probative value was high and limiting instruction sufficed to prevent unfair prejudice	Berckmann: evidence was highly prejudicial and its probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice	No abuse: probative value not substantially outweighed; district court’s limiting instructions mitigated prejudice
Applicability of Bettencourt / San Martin precedent	Government: prior-act evidence here tied to same victim and explained intent/history	Berckmann: relied on Bettencourt and San Martin to argue the evidence was classic propensity evidence	Court: Bettencourt and San Martin inapplicable (different victims/remote acts); Hinton and related cases controlling for same-victim prior acts

United States v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 1994) (prior assaults on same victim admissible to show intent)
United States v. Lozano, 623 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 404(b) admission)
United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements for admissibility of other-act evidence)
United States v. Bailey, 696 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rule 404(a) bars character-in-conformity evidence)
United States v. Cruz-Garcia, 344 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 404(b) is one of inclusion for non-propensity purposes)
United States v. Ramos-Atondo, 732 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 403 balancing and unfair prejudice standard)
United States v. Thornhill, 940 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2019) (limiting instructions can mitigate undue prejudice)
United States v. Bettencourt, 614 F.2d 214 (9th Cir. 1980) (prior acts inadmissible where unrelated and only probative of propensity)
United States v. San Martin, 505 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1974) (remote prior convictions involving different victims are classic character evidence)
United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) (attempt crimes require specific intent)