## Facts

- Police attempted to pull over Shawn Crane.
- Crane crashed his car and fled on foot.
- Erica Bryant, who had been in the car, remained at the scene.
- Officers recovered a firearm from Bryant’s purse.
- The government represented that Bryant was prepared to testify that Crane handed her the firearm before he fled.
- Crane was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Before trial, the United States moved to introduce evidence of Crane’s prior federal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- In the prior case, police pulled over a vehicle in which Crane was present, and officers found a firearm in the purse of a passenger.
- Crane pleaded guilty to the prior felon-in-possession charge.
- The government sought to use the prior conviction (and the similarity in how the firearm was found) to show that, in the current case, Crane knowingly possessed the firearm and was not innocently associated with a gun that happened to be in someone else’s purse.

## Issues

1. Whether the government could introduce evidence of Crane’s prior felon-in-possession conviction, arising from a similar incident involving a firearm found in a passenger’s purse, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove knowledge and lack of mistake.
2. Whether the danger of unfair prejudice from the prior-conviction evidence substantially outweighed its probative value under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and what limits were required if the evidence was admitted.

## Decision

- The court ruled on the government’s pretrial request to admit evidence of Crane’s prior felon-in-possession conviction.
- The court permitted the government to present the prior conviction as other-acts evidence for limited, non-character purposes, including knowledge and lack of mistake as to the firearm found in Bryant’s purse.
- The court limited how the prior incident could be presented to the jury to reduce the risk of unfair prejudice and to avoid turning the trial into a second trial about the earlier case.
- The court indicated that, if the evidence was admitted at trial, it would be accompanied by a limiting instruction directing the jury to consider the evidence only for the allowed purposes and not as proof that Crane acted in conformity with a bad character.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) bars using other crimes or acts to prove character and conduct in conformity, but allows such evidence for other purposes, including knowledge and absence of mistake.
- When the government offers prior-act evidence to prove knowledge in a possession case, the degree of factual similarity between the prior incident and the charged conduct affects probative value.
- A prior conviction based on a guilty plea can supply sufficient proof that the defendant committed the other act for Rule 404(b) purposes.
- Even if evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b), Rule 403 requires exclusion when unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value.
- Courts may reduce Rule 403 risk by narrowing the proof to the basic facts needed for the permitted inference and by giving a limiting instruction.

## Conclusion

United States v. Crane held that, in a felon-in-possession prosecution where the firearm was found in a passenger’s purse and the passenger was expected to testify the defendant handed it to her, the government could introduce a prior felon-in-possession conviction from a similar purse-found incident under Rule 404(b) to show knowledge and lack of mistake, subject to Rule 403 limits and a limiting instruction.


United States v. Crane, 2009 WL 112942 (2009)