United States v. Hearst

563 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977)

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

D was tried under a two-count indictment charging her with armed robbery of a San Francisco bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d) and 924(c)(1). D raised the defense of duress, contending her co-participants compelled her to engage in the criminal activity. P introduced evidence connecting D with criminal activity at a sporting goods store and with a kidnapping and theft. These incidents occurred in the Los Angeles area approximately one month after the San Francisco bank robbery. The evidence showed that D accompanied William and Emily Harris to Mel's Sporting Goods Store in Los Angeles, that the Harrises entered the store and left appellant outside in a truck, that a store clerk saw William Harris shoplifting and attempted to arrest him, and that D discharged an automatic rifle at the store, enabling Harris to escape. The evidence further showed that on the same day D and the Harrises stole a van and kidnapped its owner, Thomas Matthews. Matthews testified that during this incident the Harrises were outside the van and D had an opportunity to escape or give Matthews a message but did not do so. D objected to admission of this evidence but it was admitted. D was convicted and appealed. D asserts the evidence was irrelevant for any purpose except for convincing the jury that D acted in accordance with a criminal disposition. D argues that even if the evidence were relevant to the issue of intent, as the district court held, the incidents were so dissimilar to the bank robbery that its probative value was minimal and outweighed by its prejudicial effect. D contends the court erred in permitting the introduction of this evidence during the government's case-in-chief.