United States v. McGlothin
705 F.3d 1254
10th Cir.2013Background
- McGlothin was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for felon in possession of a firearm.
- Prosecution sought to admit evidence of 2007 and 2009 incidents where McGlothin possessed firearms.
- District court admitted the 404(b) evidence conditionally, reserving final ruling for trial.
- Trial evidence showed Glock found in a rented apartment, with McGlothin using it as a permanent residence.
- DNA analysis linked McGlothin to the Glock; two-dollar bills, mail, and clothing connected him to the scene.
- McGlothin did not object to the 2007 incident; the 2009 incident objection was not preserved for review; the court applied plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) evidence was admissible for proper purposes | McGlothin argues incidents are irrelevant and improper propensity evidence | McGlothin contends evidence shows knowledge/possession; Moran supports proper purpose | Yes; admissible for knowledge/possession purposes under Moran |
| Whether 404(b) evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative | Waits’s testimony and 2009 incident prejudiced the jury | Probative value of proximity and knowledge outweighed prejudice | No plain error; district court did not plainly err under Rule 403 |
| Whether district court’s limiting instruction was required and properly given | Limiting instruction needed to restrict 404(b) use | Instruction given sua sponte and upheld by court | Limiting instruction was proper and not plain error |
| Whether lack of contemporaneous objection bars review or supports plain-error review | Failure to object at trial blocks ordinary review | Plain-error review applies for unpreserved issues | Review conducted for plain error; no reversible error found |
| Whether any error affected substantial rights and the verdict | Admission of evidence could have swayed the verdict | Overwhelming evidence of constructive possession existed | No; errors did not affect substantial rights; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2007) (proper purpose and relevance of 404(b) evidence to knowledge/intent in felon-in-possession)
- United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2012) (four-part Rule 404(b) test and limiting-instruction requirements)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error standard for trial errors not preserved on appeal)
- United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 403/404(b) issues where preserved)
- United States v. Jameson, 478 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review when no timely and specific objection)