UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HAROLD HALL, JR.
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wynn, June 1, 2017,
Character Evidence- A defendant’s prior convictions for Possession with Intent to Distribute marijuana could not be used to prove that he “had the specific intent to distribute” marijuana found in a locked bedroom in a shared house.

(Dissent- Wilkinson- “The dukes and earls of the appellate kingdom should learn to respect a trial court’s job.”)

The facts noted in the dissent are significantly more expansive. There was more than enough to obtain a conviction, despite what the majority opinion leads the reader to believe (the phrase “no evidence directly linking” was my tip off that this would be the case). But it doesn’t matter! I don’t know why the majority spends so much time attacking the underlying case. Propensity evidence is bad! Move on. If you want to do harmless error analysis, THEN go ahead and attack the facts.

Facts:
A search was conducted of a home occupied by four people in Columbia, South Carolina. The search revealed approximately six kilograms of marijuana and three firearms inside a deadbolt-locked bedroom in the home. At trial, the government presented no evidence directly linking Hall to the guns and marijuana or to the locked bedroom in which the contraband was found. The guns and marijuana did not include Hall’s fingerprints, nor was there evidence that he had ever used any of the three guns or the marijuana. Hall was not found to be in possession of a key to the bedroom’s lock. No items found in the locked bedroom demonstrated that Hall had ever been inside that room.
At trial, the government admitted Hall’s prior convictions for PWID marijuana in order to prove that Hall had the intent to distribute the marijuana found in the house.

Character Evidence- Federal Rules of Evidence (and Maryland rules) do not allow prosecutors to introduce evidence of a prior crime or other bad act to show that on a particular occasion the defendant acted in accordance with that character.
For example: A prosecutor cannot use the fact that someone was convicted of DUI in 2015 to show that they were driving drunk on a particular night in 2016.

Character Evidence- There are certain exceptions to this rule, however. Prior convictions or other “bad acts” can be introduced under certain circumstances to prove: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Character Evidence- Even if the “bad act” is to be used for one of these reasons, the government must also show that it is “necessary” (helps prove an element of the crime), it is “reliable”, and it does not unfairly “prejudice” the jury.