United States v. Merwin Smith, 978 F.3d 613

Early morning traffic stop (July 17, 2016): officer saw Merwin Smith lean into his car, toss something out the passenger window, and heard a metallic clunk; a gun was found 10–15 feet from the car.
Smith denied touching or possessing the gun; charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
Government sought to admit Smith’s 2005 felon-in-possession conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge, absence of mistake, and intent; parties stipulated to the conviction’s facts.
District court admitted the prior conviction and instructed the jury to consider it only for knowledge/absence of mistake, not propensity.
In closing, defense argued the gun could have been discarded by a fleeing larceny suspect and suggested the officer lied; in rebuttal the prosecutor characterized that argument as calling the officer a liar/claiming he planted the gun. Objections were overruled.
Jury convicted Smith; he appealed alleging (1) improper admission of the 2005 conviction and (2) prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of 2005 felon-in-possession conviction under Rule 404(b)	Smith: prior conviction only shows propensity and is not relevant because he denies any possession (not just lack of knowledge)	Government: prior possession is relevant to the knowledge element of § 922(g)(1); evidence was similar, supported, and not overly prejudicial	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; prior conviction relevant to knowledge/intent, sufficiently similar and not overly remote; limiting instruction and stipulation mitigated prejudice
Prosecutorial remarks in rebuttal (alleged misconduct)	Smith: prosecutor’s rebuttal mischaracterized defense, disparaged counsel, and invited jury to dismiss defense as ‘tactics,’ depriving him of a fair trial	Government: remarks responded to defense closing (invited); were reasonable inferences addressing the officer’s credibility, not personal attacks on counsel	Affirmed — even if remarks were improper, Smith showed no prejudice given limited remarks, strength of evidence, and court’s curative instruction

United States v. Williams, 796 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2015) (Rule 404(b) standard; prior possession can be relevant to knowledge when defendant pleads not guilty)
United States v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 2010) (prior acts probative for knowledge/possession element)
United States v. Walker, 470 F.3d 1271 (8th Cir. 2006) (requirement that prior-act evidence be sufficiently similar)
United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (no absolute rule on temporal remoteness; apply reasonableness considering custody time)
United States v. Mothershed, 859 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1988) (distinguishing inadmissible propensity use of prior conviction)
United States v. Miller, 621 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 2010) (trial court has broad discretion over closing arguments)
United States v. Conrad, 320 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2003) (two-part test for reversible prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice factors)