## Facts

- Eduardo Bibo-Rodriguez drove a truck from Mexico into the United States through the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.
- During inspection, customs agents searched the truck and discovered cocaine concealed in the roof panel.
- Agents permitted Bibo-Rodriguez to continue driving while law enforcement maintained surveillance to identify additional participants.
- Bibo-Rodriguez left the truck in a parking lot and returned to Mexico.
- Surveillance of the truck led to the arrest of four individuals who retrieved it, and agents seized a large quantity of cocaine (about 678–682 kilograms).
- Federal authorities obtained a warrant for Bibo-Rodriguez’s arrest in connection with the cocaine importation.
- A few months later, while the warrant remained outstanding, Bibo-Rodriguez was arrested in Los Angeles on a marijuana charge (possession with intent to sell).
- After receiving Miranda warnings, Bibo-Rodriguez told an officer that he regularly brought drugs from Mexico into the United States.
- Bibo-Rodriguez later again attempted to enter through Otay Mesa in a different truck; a records check disclosed the outstanding federal warrant.
- When questioned about the earlier cocaine incident, Bibo-Rodriguez claimed he had been paid a small sum to drive the truck across the border and did not know cocaine was hidden in the roof.
- In the federal cocaine-importation case, the government sought to use the later marijuana arrest and Bibo-Rodriguez’s admission about regularly transporting drugs as Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence to prove knowledge and intent.
- The district court allowed the evidence. Bibo-Rodriguez was convicted (following proceedings that preserved his right to challenge the evidentiary ruling) and appealed.

## Issues

1. Does Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allow admission of a defendant’s similar drug-related acts and statements occurring after the charged offense to prove the defendant’s knowledge and intent regarding the earlier offense?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting the subsequent-act evidence despite the risk of unfair prejudice?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that Rule 404(b) is not limited to acts occurring before the charged crime; subsequent similar acts may be admitted for a proper non-character purpose such as knowledge or intent.
- The court concluded the later marijuana offense and Bibo-Rodriguez’s statement that he regularly transported drugs were relevant to rebut his claim that he was an unwitting courier in the cocaine importation.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence sufficiently probative on knowledge and intent and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404(b) permits evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” when offered for a purpose other than propensity, including proof of knowledge, intent, or absence of mistake.
- Rule 404(b) does not draw a timing distinction; qualifying “other acts” may occur before or after the charged conduct.
- Other-acts evidence must be relevant to a material issue in the case (such as knowledge when the defendant claims lack of awareness).
- Even when admissible under Rule 404(b), other-acts evidence is subject to Rule 403 and may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- Appellate review of Rule 404(b) admissions and Rule 403 balancing is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

United States v. Bibo-Rodriguez holds that Rule 404(b) allows the government to introduce a defendant’s later drug-related conduct and admissions to prove knowledge and intent as to an earlier charged drug-importation offense, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed because the district court reasonably found the evidence probative on knowledge and not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.


United States v. Bibo-Rodriguez, 922 F.2d 1398 (1991)