## Facts

- Deric Frank was charged in federal court with murdering his former girlfriend, Shaneika Price.
- The government alleged Frank was involved in drug dealing and theorized that he killed Price because he believed she was cooperating with police about his drug activity.
- The government also contended the charged killing followed a long pattern of Frank’s domestic abuse of Price, culminating in her death.
- To support its motive and relationship theories at trial, the government sought to introduce evidence of (1) Frank’s drug dealing and (2) prior incidents of abuse of Price.
- Frank objected, arguing that this “other acts” evidence was impermissible character evidence and that any probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of Frank’s drug dealing and prior abuse of Price was admissible for a non-character purpose under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
2. Whether, even if offered for a proper purpose, the challenged evidence should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because of unfair prejudice, confusion, or cumulative effect.

## Decision

- The court allowed the government to introduce other-acts evidence concerning Frank’s drug dealing and prior abuse of Price to the extent it was offered for proper, non-propensity purposes tied to the government’s theory of the case.
- The court concluded the evidence could be relevant to matters such as motive and the nature of the relationship between Frank and Price, rather than merely showing bad character.
- The court applied Rule 403 and required that the proof be presented in a controlled manner to reduce the risk of unfair prejudice, including the use of limiting instructions and case-specific limits on what could be introduced.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show action in conformity with that character, but it may be admitted for other purposes such as motive, intent, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. (Fed. R. Evid. 404(b))
- When the government’s theory makes motive and relationship dynamics material, prior-act evidence may be admitted if it tends to make those material facts more likely than they would be without the evidence.
- Even relevant other-acts evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needless cumulative proof. (Fed. R. Evid. 403)
- When admitting other-acts evidence, courts may reduce prejudice through careful limits on scope and presentation and by giving limiting instructions directing the jury to consider the evidence only for the permitted purpose.

## Conclusion

United States v. Frank held that, in a prosecution for Price’s murder, the government could use evidence of Frank’s drug dealing and prior abuse of Price for proper non-character purposes connected to motive and the parties’ relationship, subject to Rule 403 limits designed to prevent unfair prejudice.


United States v. Frank, 11 F.Supp.2d 341 (1998)