## Facts

- Marvin Leo Beasley, a Ph.D. chemist working as a consultant, was insured under a $1 million life insurance policy obtained by his employer, which required a physical exam.
- The exam was conducted by Dr. Warren Rucker (the mayor of Madison, Indiana).
- During the exam, Beasley described an unusual “research” idea: that tranquilizers and analgesics given to vegetables could reduce stress and increase growth.
- After this discussion, Dr. Rucker wrote numerous prescriptions for controlled substances in very large quantities, including the Schedule II narcotic Dilaudid (hydromorphone).
- Many prescriptions were written in Beasley’s name, and some were written in the names of two claimed “assistants,” which increased the amount that could be dispensed.
- Between roughly August 1980 and January 1981, Beasley obtained large quantities and varieties of controlled substances through these prescriptions and filled them at pharmacies.
- The government charged Beasley on multiple counts for obtaining Dilaudid by fraud with intent to distribute, contending the “vegetable experiment” explanation was a cover for drug trafficking.
- At trial, the government presented testimony from F.E. Brooks that Beasley sold him substantial amounts of Dilaudid over an extended period beginning in the summer of 1980.
- To prove Beasley’s intent and to rebut his claim of innocent scientific purpose, the government also offered “other acts” evidence that (after the charged period) Beasley traveled from state to state “shopping for doctors” to obtain prescriptions and had dealt other controlled substances (including Valium and codeine).
- The district court admitted the other-acts evidence with limiting instructions directing the jury to consider it only on issues such as intent, not to show bad character; the jury convicted Beasley.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 by admitting evidence of Beasley’s other drug-related acts (including later doctor-shopping and other dealing) to prove intent?
2. Was the evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Beasley obtained Dilaudid by fraud with intent to distribute (rather than for legitimate experimentation)?

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Beasley’s convictions.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b) to prove intent (and to rebut Beasley’s claim of innocent purpose), even though some of the acts occurred after the charged offenses.
- The court held the Rule 403 balance was satisfied because the other-acts evidence had substantial value on the contested issue of intent, and the risk of unfair prejudice was reduced by repeated limiting instructions.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support intent to distribute, given the extraordinary quantities and acquisition pattern for Dilaudid and other drugs, the implausibility of the asserted “vegetable” use, and testimony describing actual sales.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted under Rule 404(b) for non-propensity purposes such as intent, knowledge, plan, or absence of mistake; the rule applies to subsequent acts as well as prior acts when they bear on the defendant’s state of mind during the charged conduct.
- When a defendant offers an innocent explanation for suspicious conduct, the government may use similar other-acts evidence to make that explanation less likely, so long as the evidence is offered for a proper purpose and is relevant.
- Under Rule 403, the trial court has discretion to admit relevant other-acts evidence when its probative value on a disputed issue is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; limiting instructions are a recognized tool to reduce misuse of the evidence.
- On a sufficiency challenge, the reviewing court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; intent to distribute may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as quantity, repeated acquisition methods, and proof of distribution.

## Conclusion

United States v. Beasley affirmed convictions for obtaining Dilaudid by fraud with intent to distribute, holding that the government could use Beasley’s later doctor-shopping and other drug dealings as Rule 404(b) evidence to prove intent and negate his claimed research purpose, and that the unusually large quantities of controlled substances and testimony of actual Dilaudid sales provided sufficient evidence for the jury’s finding of intent to distribute.


United States v. Beasley, 809 F.2d 1273 (1987)