U.S. v. Harvey
| Decision Date | 24 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 87-1877,87-1878,s. 87-1877 |
| Parties | 25 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1030 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jerry Lee HARVEY, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Jerry Lee HARVEY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James D. McMaster, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Samuel Rosenthal, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before FAGG and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, * Senior Circuit Judge.
Jerry Lee Harvey was convicted in 1987 of conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371. Harvey's conviction arose out of his participation in a scheme to avoid payment of appropriate federal taxes related to the sale of an airplane. Harvey appeals, claiming the district court improperly admitted evidence of Harvey's involvement over ten years earlier in other criminal activities. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Harvey arranged through Patrick McCarten, an airplane broker in St. Louis, Missouri, to buy a Lear jet. The terms of the sale called for Harvey to pay a cash deposit and to pay the remainder of the purchase price in two parts: one part in the form of a check or wire funds transfer and the other in cash on delivery. The understood function of this method of payment was to misrepresent the actual sales price of the airplane for the purpose of avoiding payment of federal taxes attributable to the transaction.
As part of its case in chief on Harvey's tax conspiracy prosecution, the government offered the following testimony by McCarten concerning a meeting he had with Harvey during an unrelated business trip:
Q. Did you talk about various subjects during the lunch?
A. Yes, sir.
* * *
* * *
Q. What did the defendant say?
A. The defendant indicated to me that at some time in his past, that I interpreted to be the late '60s and the early '70s, that he was an importer of drugs into the United States.
Q. Did he say whether or not he made any money in his business dealings?
A. Yes, sir, he indicated that he made large sums of money.
Q. Did he say anything about how large?
A. The term millions comes to mind.
Q. Did he say where the money was?
A. Yes, sir, he indicated the money was invested in the Cayman Islands.
* * *
* * *
Q. Did he tell you why he had gotten out of the business?
A. He indicated to me that some time in the mid to late '70s, he had contracted cancer of the ankle and it was going to take considerable time to rehabilitate himself from the operation curing the cancer. He felt he could no longer operate the business of importing drugs in--being less than 100 percent capable, and therefore he had dismantled his business and ceased to operate in that area.
Harvey raised the issue of the admissibility of this evidence in his pretrial and posttrial motions. At trial, Harvey objected to McCarten's testimony as irrelevant and even if relevant, as highly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. In response, the government stated its purpose for offering the evidence was to show Harvey's conduct was not the result of mistake or accident, but was motivated by Harvey's need for a method of converting earlier illegal gains into legitimate assets by passing extra cash "under the table."
The district court overruled Harvey's objection to McCarten's testimony, determining that under rule 403 the evidence was relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The district court also ruled that under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) the evidence was admissible to show motive, intent, preparation, or absence of mistake or accident. The jury was not instructed, either at the time of McCarten's testimony or in the final instructions, that the evidence could be considered only for this limited purpose and not as evidence of Harvey's propensity to engage in criminal activity.
Initially, we observe the district court's "laundry list" approach to rule 404(b) is of little help to us. Rather than making a broad reference which merely restates the components of the rule, the district court should specify which components of the rule form the basis of its ruling and why. See United States v. Rivera, 837 F.2d 906, 912 (10th Cir.1988). To that end, the court should require the party invoking the rule to explain clearly its 404(b) analysis. See id.
On appeal Harvey does not challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support his tax conspiracy conviction. Neither does he challenge the accuracy of McCarten's description of his earlier activities. Instead, Harvey argues that because McCarten's testimony concerns uncharged drug and financial activities occurring more than ten years before this tax prosecution, the district court committed reversible error in allowing the jury to consider that evidence. We agree.
McCarten's testimony about Harvey's past drug and financial dealings is evidence of other bad acts and is not admissible to prove that because Harvey engaged in illegal conduct in the past, he is guilty of the current charge. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); United States v. Lanier, 838 F.2d 281, 285 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam). The government contends the evidence is admissible, however, for the purpose of proving motive. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); United States v. Wagoner, 713 F.2d 1371, 1375 (8th Cir.1983). Rule 404(b) admissibility requires:
(1) an issue is raised on which evidence of other crimes may be received; (2) the evidence is relevant to that issue; (3) the evidence of the other crime or bad act is clear and convincing; and (4) the probative worth outweighs any prejudicial impact.
Lanier, 838 F.2d at 285. Although the district court has broad discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Caton v. Sanders
...which components of the rule form the basis" of the proffer and the ruling. Mothershed, 859 F.2d 585, 589 (quoting United States v. Harvey, 845 F.2d 760, 762 (8th Cir.1988)). In keeping with this rationale, we instructed in syllabus point 1 of McGinnis [w]hen offering evidence under Rule 40......
-
U.S. v. Westbrook, s. 89-5341
...404(b) it is being admitted, and should instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which it may be considered. United States v. Harvey, 845 F.2d 760, 762 (8th Cir.1988); United States v. Cuch, 842 F.2d 1173, 1176 (10th Cir.1988). However, evidence which is probative of a crime with which ......
-
Harvey v. Commissioner
... ... Also attached to the brief was a July 25, 1983, letter to the manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, signed by petitioner, that stated: ... Please forward to Bruce Campbell & Co. a draft in favour of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for the sum of US$3,125,000.00, the balance on the account should be handed to the bearer of this letter in cash. These sums represent the six Certificates of Deposit held at your branch and which mature today ... Bruce Campbell & Co. was the law firm petitioner used in the Cayman Islands. In ... ...
-
U.S. v. Johnson
...components of the rule," but "should specify which components of the rule form the basis of its ruling and why." United States v. Harvey, 845 F.2d 760, 762 (8th Cir.1988); cf. United States v. Mothershed, 859 F.2d 585, 589 (8th Cir.1988) (discouraging courts from using "laundry list" approa......