## Facts

- A federal grand jury charged Dr. David K. Guardia, a gynecologist at Kirtland Air Force Base, with federal sexual-abuse counts and assimilated New Mexico offenses based on alleged misconduct during gynecological exams of two patients in October and November 1995.
- The two alleged victims claimed that during examinations Guardia made direct clitoral contact exceeding medically appropriate techniques and constituting sexual abuse.
- One alleged victim further claimed Guardia made a comment (“I love my job”) indicating a sexual motive; the other alleged he later called her at home and engaged in conduct suggesting sexual interest.
- Neither charged examination occurred with a chaperone present.
- The government sought to introduce, under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, testimony from four additional women who alleged similar sexual misconduct by Guardia during gynecological examinations.
- The proffer included allegations such as prolonged clitoral rubbing, placing his face between patients’ legs during pelvic exams, and sexually motivated breast touching during breast exams.
- After a hearing, the district court ruled the proffered testimony qualified under Rule 413 but excluded it under Rule 403, finding the risk of jury confusion, unfair prejudice, and undue delay substantially outweighed its probative value.
- The government took an interlocutory appeal limited to the exclusion of the Rule 413 evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 413 is nonetheless subject to exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony from four additional alleged victims under Rule 403 in a sexual-abuse prosecution.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the exclusion order.
- The court held that Rule 413 is an inclusionary rule but does not displace Rule 403’s balancing test.
- Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the court concluded the district court’s Rule 403 analysis was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
- The court accepted the district court’s concern that admitting four additional accusers would create multiple mini-trials, producing jury confusion and undue delay and shifting focus from the two charged incidents.
- The court held the district court permissibly found these risks substantially outweighed the probative value of the additional-act evidence in this case.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 413 does not render prior sexual-assault evidence automatically admissible; such evidence remains subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
- Under Rule 403, a court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers including unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or cumulative presentation.
- Appellate review of Rule 403 determinations is highly deferential; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion.
- In applying Rule 403 to Rule 413 evidence, courts may consider whether multiple other-act allegations will lead to collateral mini-trials and distract the jury from deciding the charged conduct.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that Rule 413 evidence remains subject to Rule 403 and affirmed exclusion of four additional alleged-victim witnesses where the district court reasonably found the added allegations would generate mini-trials, confuse the jury, and unduly prolong the proceeding relative to their probative value.


United States v. Guardia, 135 F.3d 1326 (10th Cir. 1998)