## Facts

- A trailer containing about 32,000 blank Memorex videocassette tapes was stolen from an Illinois shipping yard in April 1985.
- Shortly after the theft, Guy Rufus Huddleston offered a Michigan business a large number of blank tapes at a price significantly below market.
- Huddleston was federally charged with knowing possession and knowing sale of stolen goods moving in interstate commerce.
- At trial, Huddleston did not contest that the tapes were stolen; the disputed element was whether he knew they were stolen.
- The government offered other-acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show knowledge:
  - A witness testified Huddleston offered to sell new 12" black-and-white televisions for $28 each, claiming he could obtain thousands, and sold 38 sets.
  - An undercover FBI agent testified Huddleston offered to sell about $20,000 of Amana appliances for $8,000; at the arranged delivery time, Huddleston was arrested and stolen appliances were delivered by an associate.
- Huddleston testified the tapes, televisions, and appliances came from a third party and that he believed they were legitimately obtained; he had no bills of sale.
- The district court admitted the other-acts evidence with a limiting instruction that it could be considered only on knowledge, not character; the jury convicted on the possession count and acquitted on the sale count.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 404(b) requires the trial judge to find, by a preponderance of the evidence (or another standard), that the defendant committed the “other acts” before admitting the evidence.
2. Whether Rule 104(b)’s conditional-relevancy standard governs admission of other-acts evidence when relevancy depends on whether the other act occurred.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held Rule 404(b) does not require the judge to make a preliminary finding that the other acts were proved by a preponderance of the evidence as a prerequisite to admission.
- When relevancy depends on whether the other act occurred, Rule 104(b) applies: the evidence may be admitted if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the conditional fact is satisfied.
- The trial judge does not resolve credibility disputes or decide whether the other act occurred; the judge screens only for whether a reasonable jury could find the conditional fact by a preponderance.
- The Court concluded the television and appliance evidence was properly admitted to show knowledge, given the low prices, quantities offered, lack of documentation, and surrounding circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for non-propensity purposes (including knowledge), subject to ordinary relevance limits.
- Conditional relevancy for other-acts evidence is governed by Rule 104(b): the court admits the evidence if the proponent introduces sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the conditional fact.
- The Federal Rules rely on safeguards other than judicial fact-finding on the other act’s occurrence, including:
  - Rule 403 balancing against unfair prejudice, confusion, and related dangers.
  - Rule 105 limiting instructions restricting the jury’s use of the evidence to a proper purpose.
- No heightened admissibility threshold (such as “clear and convincing” evidence) is imposed by Rule 404(b) for proving the other act to the judge.

## Conclusion

The Court held that other-acts evidence offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b) is admissible without a preliminary judicial determination that the act was proved by a preponderance; instead, under Rule 104(b), the evidence may go to the jury if a reasonable jury could find the conditional fact and the evidence survives Rule 403 and limiting-instruction safeguards.


Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988)