## Facts

- A federal jury convicted defendants for two Fresno, California bank robberies: (1) Western Financial Savings Bank (Mar. 12, 1992) and (2) Bank of America (Mar. 23, 1992).
- Western Financial robbery: two armed men committed a “takeover style” robbery, forced employees/customers to the floor at gunpoint, jumped the counter, took money into a bag, used abusive language, and fled; evidence included witness identifications and surveillance-photo identifications of Torres and Piña.
- Bank of America robbery: three armed men burst in mid-morning, ordered people down, jumped counters, removed money from teller areas into various bags, used foul language, and struck the manager; a teller observed a neck tattoo consistent with Torres’s.
- Shortly after the Bank of America robbery, a deputy connected a car and occupants (including Luna) to the relevant area and timeframe.
- Over objection, the district court admitted evidence of two later Oregon bank robberies (Apr. 1992) allegedly involving Luna and Piña as “other acts” under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove identity for the Fresno robberies.
- The government proffered similarities (masks/gloves/sweatclothes, mid-morning “takeover” entries, profanity, counter-jumping, bagging money, getaway car), but trial evidence showed substantial variation (number of robbers, roles, clothing/masks/gloves, and vehicles).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of two Oregon robberies under Rule 404(b) to prove identity in the Fresno robberies.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Piña’s and Torres’s Fresno convictions.
3. Whether the district court erred by applying sentencing enhancements to Torres for reckless endangerment and infliction of bodily injury.

## Decision

- The court held the district court abused its discretion in admitting the Oregon robberies as Rule 404(b) identity evidence because the claimed similarities were largely generic and the record revealed significant inconsistencies.
- The court reversed Luna’s and Piña’s convictions due to the erroneous admission of the Oregon robberies.
- The court rejected sufficiency challenges and held the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts against Piña and Torres.
- The court affirmed Torres’s conviction and affirmed the sentencing enhancements for reckless endangerment and infliction of bodily injury.

## Legal Principles

- When other-acts evidence is offered to prove identity under Rule 404(b), the acts must share a high degree of similarity amounting to a distinctive “signature” modus operandi; common features of a typical offense are insufficient.
- A court must evaluate proffered similarities against the trial record; material variations can substantially reduce probative value for identity.
- Under Rule 403, if other-acts evidence has limited probative value for identity and poses a substantial risk of unfair prejudice by inviting propensity reasoning, admission is an abuse of discretion.
- On sufficiency review, a conviction stands if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit reversed Luna’s and Piña’s convictions because the Oregon robberies were improperly admitted as Rule 404(b) identity evidence; the asserted similarities were not distinctive enough to function as a signature and the resulting prejudice outweighed any probative value. Torres’s conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the evidence was deemed sufficient to sustain the Fresno robbery verdicts.


United States v. Luna, 21 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1994)