## Facts

- Atdilon Baez was tried in the Southern District of New York for possessing a TEC-9 semiautomatic firearm after a felony conviction and for selling that firearm to a convicted felon.
- Before trial, Baez informed the court he intended to assert an entrapment defense.
- To rebut entrapment, the government sought to introduce evidence bearing on Baez’s predisposition, including his statements, related conduct, and prior weapons-possession convictions.
- Over Baez’s objection, the district court admitted the evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 as relevant to predisposition and not unfairly prejudicial.
- Baez was convicted and sentenced principally to 105 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, Baez challenged the evidentiary rulings admitting the “other acts” and prior-conviction evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Baez’s statements, conduct, and prior weapons-possession convictions under Rule 404(b) to prove predisposition in response to an entrapment defense.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Rule 403 by concluding the evidence’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under Rule 404(b) because, once entrapment was raised, predisposition became a permissible non-propensity purpose.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 because the probative value of the evidence on predisposition was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- The court emphasized that reversal requires evidentiary rulings that are arbitrary or irrational, which was not shown.

## Legal Principles

- When a defendant presents credible evidence of government inducement, the government must prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Under the Second Circuit’s inclusionary approach, Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible for any purpose other than proving criminal propensity.
- In entrapment cases, prior acts and convictions may be admitted under Rule 404(b) to show predisposition.
- Even relevant, properly purposed evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- Appellate review of Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 determinations is for abuse of discretion, with reversal reserved for arbitrary or irrational evidentiary decisions.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld Baez’s convictions, concluding that once he put entrapment in issue, the government could introduce prior weapons-related acts and convictions to prove predisposition, and the district court reasonably determined under Rules 404(b) and 403 that the evidence was admissible.


United States v. Baez, 761 F. App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2019)