United States v. Valentina Elebesunu
677 F. App'x 862
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- November 21, 2012: three masked gunmen robbed an armored truck at a Bank of America branch; about $275,000 taken. A broader conspiracy involving bank insiders emerged during the investigation.
- Damione Lewis, a contract security guard, was arrested, confessed, and identified Valentina Elebesunu (Bank of America assistant VP) as a planner/facilitator; Lewis entered a plea agreement and testified for the Government.
- Lewis testified (without contemporaneous objection) that Elebesunu told him she had previously taken $50,000 in 2007 while a teller and described sliding it out a drive‑thru window.
- Elebesunu denied involvement at trial; she objected only later when the Government sought to elicit more testimony about the 2007 event, arguing it was inadmissible Rule 404(b) character evidence.
- The district court ruled Elebesunu had waived a Rule 404(b) objection because Lewis’s testimony came in without objection and allowed the Government to pursue the subject; a limiting instruction was given to the jury.
- Jury convicted Elebesunu of Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy; sentenced to 105 months. On appeal she argued admission of the 2007 testimony violated Rule 404(b); review applied plain‑error standard because no timely objection was made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether testimony about a prior 2007 taking was inadmissible character evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | Elebesunu: the 2007 event was a separate bad act used to show propensity and should have been excluded | Government: testimony was admissible to show intent, knowledge, plan, and was relevant, reliable, and not unfairly prejudicial | Admission was not plain error; evidence was sufficiently related, probative of intent/knowledge, not plainly unreliable, and prejudice was mitigated by limiting instruction |
| Whether the 404(b) objection was preserved for appeal | Elebesunu: she objected when Government tried to elicit more about 2007 on cross | Government: initial testimony from Lewis came in without objection, so any 404(b) claim was waived | Court applied plain‑error review because Elebesunu failed to make a specific and timely objection at trial |
| Whether the passage of time or factual differences made the prior act too remote or dissimilar | Elebesunu: 2007 event was temporally remote and not sufficiently similar | Government: 5.5 years is not too remote; both incidents show misuse of bank position for personal gain | Court: temporal gap acceptable (citing precedent); factual similarity adequate because both involved leveraging bank position for money |
| Whether the probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice | Elebesunu: the jury may have convicted based on propensity; the prior act was highly prejudicial | Government: limiting instruction and strong other evidence reduced prejudice | Court: limiting instruction and other evidence cured any slight prejudice; not plain error to admit testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Keita, 742 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2014) (preservation and plain‑error review for evidentiary objections)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (elements of plain‑error review)
- United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2013) (definition of "plain" error)
- United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941 (4th Cir. 2010) (deference where ruling is debateable, not plain error)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (four‑part test for admissibility under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Van Metre, 150 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 1998) (relevance and similarity analysis for 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Bailey, 990 F.2d 119 (4th Cir. 1993) (distinguishing reliability from credibility in 404(b) analysis)
- United States v. Rooks, 596 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2010) (clarifying "necessary" prong of Queen)
- United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008) (when evidence is "so preposterous" as to be unreliable)
- United States v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 1997) (credibility determinations reserved for the jury)
- United States v. Hadaway, 681 F.2d 214 (4th Cir. 1982) (plea agreement does not automatically render witness unreliable)
- United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460 (4th Cir. 1995) (limiting instructions generally cure prejudice)
- United States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2003) (unfair prejudice defined and weighed against probative value)