Huddleston v. United States

485 U.S. 681 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Huddleston (D) was charged with the possession of stolen property in interstate commerce. The allegation was that he possessed and sold Memorex videocassettes, knowing that they were stolen. The Government (P) entered evidence of 'similar acts' under Rule 404 (b). The first piece of similar act evidence offered by the Government was the testimony of Paul Toney, a record store owner. He testified that in February 1985, D offered to sell new 12' black and white televisions for $28 apiece. According to Toney, D indicated that he could obtain several thousand of these televisions. Petitioner and Toney eventually traveled to the Magic Rent-to-Own, where Toney purchased 20 televisions. Several days later, Toney purchased 18 more televisions. The second piece of similar act evidence was the testimony of Robert Nelson, an undercover FBI agent posing as a buyer for an appliance store. Nelson testified that in May 1985, D offered to sell him a large quantity of Amana appliances - 28 refrigerators, 2 ranges, and 40 icemakers. Nelson agreed to pay $8,000 for the appliances. D was arrested shortly after he arrived at the parking lot where he and Nelson had agreed to transfer the appliances. A truck containing the appliances was stopped a short distance from the parking lot, and Leroy Wesby, who was driving the truck, was also arrested. It was determined that the appliances had a value of approximately $20,000 and were part of a shipment that had been stolen. It was assumed that this evidence was relevant to his knowledge. The trial court admitted the evidence with limiting instructions to show D’s knowledge that the goods were stolen. D was convicted and appealed. D contends that such evidence of prior acts is admissible only if the prosecution proves by a preponderance of the evidence that similar crimes were committed. The Sixth Circuit initially reversed the conviction, concluding that because the Government had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the televisions were stolen, the District Court erred in admitting the testimony concerning the televisions. On rehearing, the court affirmed the conviction applying the preponderance of the evidence standard.