Treece v. Hochstetler & City of Naperville

• Decision Date: 17 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-1283,99-1283
• Citation: 213 F.3d 360
• Parties: (7th Cir. 2000) NAOMI TREECE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN HOCHSTETLER and CITY OF NAPERVILLE, Defendants-Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 360

213 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2000)

NAOMI TREECE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVEN HOCHSTETLER and CITY OF NAPERVILLE, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-1283

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Argued February 17, 2000

Decided May 17, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 94 C 5548--Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.

Before Harlington Wood, Jr., Coffey and Ripple, Circuit Judges.

COFFEY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Naomi Treece ("Treece") filed a section 1983 federal civil rights suit against officer Steven Hochstetler ("Hochstetler") of the City of Naperville police department and the City of Naperville ("City"), alleging that they maliciously prosecuted her.¹ After the City "agree[d] to entry of judgment against [itself]" should "the jury enter[ ] a finding of liability against Defendant Hochstetler," the judge bifurcated the trial, removing the City from the trial, and ordered Treece's section 1983 action against Hochstetler to proceed. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hochstetler and the judge accordingly entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of Hochstetler and entered a summary judgment in favor of the City.² The plaintiff moved for a new trial and the court denied the request. Treece appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion when it bifurcated the trial and in excluding evidence of Hochstetler's prior "bad acts." Treece also appeals the judge's entry of summary judgment in favor of the City.

AFFIRM.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 21, 1991, Naperville police officer Hochstetler received an anonymous tip describing an unusually large amount of scrap wire in the open bed of a pick-up truck parked in the driveway of Treece and her husband, Otis Treece ("Otis"). Pursuant to the police department supervisor's instructions, Hochstetler went to the Treece residence to verify the information and discovered what he described as a large amount of scrap wire in Otis' pickup truck.³ Also found was a box, containing some of the same scrap wire, addressed to the Naperville Electric Department. The scrap wire and box were seized and retained as evidence, and shortly thereafter, Otis was suspended from his job.⁴

A few days later, Larry Dickson, a fellow Naperville police officer, informed Hochstetler that Treece had attempted to contact him. That evening, Hochstetler telephoned Treece and he arranged to meet with her at the Naperville train station the next day. He stated that they conversed for about fifteen minutes, but Hochstetler's and Treece's accounts of what transpired are vastly different. Treece alleges that Hochstetler demanded a $100,000 bribe to drop the charges against her husband. Hochstetler, on the other hand, claims that Treece told him that she was connected to an Eastern Tennessee crime family and threatened that unless the charges against her husband were dropped, he would be shot and his house would be blown up.

After the meeting, Hochstetler informed his supervisor and the State's Attorney's Office of Treece's threats, and obtained an order from a judge dated September 30, 1991, authorizing the police to record his conversations with Treece. They met again at the Naperville train station on October 1, 1991, and Hochstetler was wired with a recording device. During the conversation, Treece told Hochstetler that "I don't think your family is in danger, I think it is a fact." One week later, Hochstetler taped a phone conversation with Treece, during which she repeated that his family was in a state of danger.

On October 13, 1991, Hochstetler observed Treece in the Naperville Police Department parking lot while she appeared to be filming the license plate numbers of the police officers' personal automobiles with a video camera. Treece contends that she was filming geese on a nearby lake and did not notice the "No Trespassing-Authorized Vehicles Only" sign. Contrary to her assertions, Treece can be heard on the video tape stating, "Keep fearing Steve, cause it will happen. Word has already come down." Another encounter occurred two days later when Treece attempted to take pictures of Hochstetler and his family during a charity go-cart race. Hochstetler filed police reports detailing these incidents and informed the State's Attorney's Office, which in turn decided to seek charges against Treece.

Based on these incidents, a DuPage County, Illinois grand jury returned a state criminal indictment charging Treece with three counts of intimidation under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12- 6(a).⁵ At trial, the state's attorney had difficulty prosecuting her and after two mistrials, nolle-prossed the case. Six months later, Treece filed a section 1983 civil rights suit in federal court, alleging that Hochstetler and the City of Naperville had maliciously prosecuted her. As mentioned previously, according to the stipulation in the record, the City "agree[d] to entry of judgment against [itself]" should "the jury enter[ ] a finding of liability against Defendant Hochstetler." The judge accordingly bifurcated the trial, removing the City from the trial, and ordered Treece's section 1983 action against Hochstetler to proceed. During trial, in spite of an objection on the part of Treece, the court excluded evidence in so far as Hochstetler's prior "bad acts," which Treece claims would have established that he engaged in a pattern of soliciting bribes and falsely charging individuals with crimes when the bribes were not paid.⁶ The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hochstetler, and the judge thereafter entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of Hochstetler and entered a summary judgment in favor of the City, and denied Treece's motion for a new trial. Treece appealed.

II. ISSUES

On appeal, Treece argues that the court: (1) abused its discretion in excluding evidence of Hochstetler's prior "bad acts"; (2) erred in entering a summary judgment for the City; and (3) abused its discretion when it bifurcated the trial.

III. ANALYSIS

A. The District Court's Exclusion of Prior "Bad Acts" Evidence

Treece contends that the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Hochstetler's prior "bad acts." We review a court's decision to exclude Rule 404(b) evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Griffin, 194 F.3d 808, 820 (7th Cir. 1999).⁷ In reviewing a judge's determination of the admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence, "we must accord great deference to the [trial] court's assessments because of the judge's first hand exposure to the evidence and because of the judge's familiarity with the case and ability to gauge the impact of evidence in the context of the proceeding." United States v. Asher, 178 F.3d 486, 494 (7th Cir. 1999).

We utilize a four-prong test to determine the admissibility of prior "bad acts" evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Under this test, evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted when: (1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged; (2) the evidence shows that the other act is similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter in issue; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the similar act; and (4) the probative value of the evidence is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Asher, 178 F.3d at 492.

Treece argues that the prior "bad acts" evidence satisfies the first and second prongs of the test because it established Hochstetler's "modus operandi"--his "common scheme" or pattern of conduct of soliciting bribes and then filing false police reports to support the trumped up charges when the bribes are not paid. Indeed, we have held that prior "bad acts" evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) to demonstrate modus operandi. See United States v. Smith, 103 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 1996). But we have cautioned that "[i]f defined broadly enough, modus operandi evidence becomes nothing more than the character evidence that Rule 404(b) prohibits." Id. Thus, in order to ensure that the evidence at issue is not offered to establish Hochstetler's propensity to commit the acts for which he is accused, "we require that [the prior bad acts] evidence bear 'a singular strong resemblance to the pattern of the offense charged.'" United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 468 (7th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Shackleford, 738 F.2d 776, 783 (7th Cir. 1984)).

Treece's federal suit essentially accused Hochstetler of violating her constitutional rights by demanding a bribe from her in exchange for dropping the charges against her husband. The trial judge found, and we agree, that the record reflects that none of Hochstetler's purported prior "bad acts" revealed any information, much less, any allegations of Hochstetler "shaking down" individuals or demanding a bribe in exchange for the dismissal of the charges. Thus, these incidents are not "sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit an inference of pattern." See United States v. Hudson, 884 F.2d 1016, 1021 (7th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, because the excluded evidence of Hochstetler's prior "bad acts" did not "bear a singular strong resemblance to the pattern of the offense charged," Robinson, 161 F.3d at 468 (internal quotations omitted), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.

B. The District Court's Entry of Judgment for the City

Next, despite the jury's verdict in favor of Hochstetler, Treece baldly claims that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment thereafter in favor of the City of Naperville because, she contends, the City could still have been found independently liable based on its knowledge of Hochstetler's acts and failure to take action thereafter. Treece's unsupported assertion⁸ fails as a matter of law because it is well established...