## Facts

- Orange Jell Beechum, a substitute postal letter carrier, was suspected of taking items from the mail.
- Postal inspectors placed a “test letter” on Beechum’s route containing an 1890 silver dollar, a greeting card, and cash, addressed so proper delivery would be reported.
- The addressee did not receive the letter, and inspectors stopped Beechum and searched him at the postal station.
- Inspectors found an 1890 silver dollar in Beechum’s coin purse.
- Inspectors also found two unsigned Sears credit cards in Beechum’s wallet that were issued to other persons.
- Evidence indicated the credit cards had been mailed about ten months earlier to addresses on routes Beechum had serviced.
- Beechum admitted possessing the silver dollar but claimed he found it in the mail and intended to turn it in to his supervisor at the end of his shift.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted the credit-card evidence with a limiting instruction that it could be considered only on intent, not propensity.
- Beechum was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1708 for possessing a stolen item from the mails knowing it was stolen.

## Issues

1. What standard governs admission of “extrinsic offense” evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) after enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. Whether Beechum’s possession of two other stolen credit cards was admissible to prove intent or absence of mistake regarding the charged possession of the stolen silver dollar.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 403 by admitting the credit-card evidence despite the risk of unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court rejected the circuit’s prior rigid approach that required the extrinsic act’s elements to match the charged offense and to be proved by “plain, clear, and convincing” evidence.
- The court adopted a two-step analysis grounded in Rules 404(b) and 403.
- The credit-card evidence was relevant to a non-character issue because Beechum’s defense put intent and absence of mistake directly in dispute.
- The probative value of the credit-card evidence was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly given the limiting instruction and the comparable seriousness of the acts.

## Legal Principles

- “Extrinsic offense” evidence includes “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” not charged in the indictment and is analyzed under Rule 404(b) when it reflects adversely on the defendant’s character.
- Rule 404(b) permits other-acts evidence for non-character purposes (including intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake) and bars use solely to prove propensity.
- Admissibility of extrinsic-act evidence requires a two-step inquiry:
  - The evidence must be relevant to an issue other than character (Rules 404(b) and 401).
  - The evidence must satisfy Rule 403, meaning its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other listed dangers.
- Similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense is not a universal threshold requirement; its significance depends on the purpose for which the evidence is offered (such as proving intent).
- Limiting instructions are relevant to assessing and reducing the risk of unfair prejudice in the Rule 403 balance.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that other-acts evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) when it is relevant to a non-character issue and, under Rule 403, its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; applying that framework, it upheld admission of evidence that Beechum possessed other stolen mail items to rebut his claim of innocent intent and affirmed his § 1708 conviction.


United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc)