## Facts

- Srinivasa Erramilli was charged with abusive sexual contact on a commercial flight after a woman seated next to him awoke to find his hand on her upper inner thigh under her shorts.
- The victim and her husband sat on the right side of a full flight; Erramilli boarded late and took the only available seat between them.
- The victim initially felt brushing contact, repositioned, and later awoke to pressure on her thigh and discovered Erramilli touching her intimately; her husband summoned assistance, and Erramilli was arrested after landing.
- The government sought to introduce evidence of two earlier in-flight incidents (1999 and 2002) in which Erramilli, seated behind a young woman who appeared asleep, reached forward and fondled her breast.
- Erramilli had been convicted in state court for the earlier incidents and had admitted the acts were for sexual gratification.
- The district court admitted the 1999 and 2002 acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and, after Rule 403 balancing, instructed the jury on how it could use the evidence.
- A jury convicted Erramilli of abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting the 1999 and 2002 incidents under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, and whether the evidence should have been excluded under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial or confusing.
2. Whether the district court’s jury instruction regarding the permitted use of the Rule 413 evidence misstated the law or improperly encouraged conviction based on bad character.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the charged offense and the prior incidents qualified as “sexual assault” for Rule 413 purposes and that the evidence was relevant to intent, absence of mistake, and propensity.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403 because the prior acts were highly probative given their close similarity and distinctive context.
- The court held the jury instruction properly explained permissible use of the evidence, reminded jurors that the defendant was not on trial for the prior acts, and preserved the government’s burden to prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- In a sexual-assault prosecution, Federal Rule of Evidence 413 permits admission of evidence that the defendant committed other sexual assaults, and the jury may consider that evidence on any relevant matter, including propensity.
- Rule 413 evidence remains subject to Rule 403; a court must exclude it only when probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or similar dangers.
- Strong similarity between the charged conduct and prior sexual assaults increases probative value, including on intent and the likelihood the contact was not accidental.
- Temporal distance does not necessarily defeat admissibility when the prior acts share an unusual and specific pattern with the charged offense.
- A proper limiting instruction may permit consideration of prior assaults while clarifying the defendant is not being tried for those acts and that the government must prove the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that evidence of Erramilli’s prior, similar in-flight sexual assaults was admissible under Rule 413 and survived Rule 403 balancing, and that the district court’s jury instruction appropriately guided the jury’s use of the evidence; the conviction for abusive sexual contact was affirmed.


United States v. Erramilli, 788 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2015)