U.S. v. Hurley, 84-7417

Decision Date19 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-7417,84-7417
Citation755 F.2d 788
Parties17 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1426 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcia HURLEY, a/k/a Marcia Monday and Marcia Harben, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Michael Graffeo, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Frank W. Donaldson, U.S. Atty., John C. Earnest, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before TJOFLAT, HILL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Marcia Hurley appeals from her conviction for willfully aiding and abetting her husband, Raymond Hurley, in escaping from federal custody, contending that the district court erred in admitting evidence of her contacts with Raymond after his escape. We affirm the conviction, finding the evidence to have been properly admitted.

On October 8, 1983, Raymond Hurley was in federal custody in Madison County Jail in Huntsville, Alabama. A cellmate, Roy Paul, agreed to permit Hurley to impersonate Paul in an attempt to obtain release under Paul's bond. Another inmate at the jail testified that he overheard Hurley making two phone calls to Tennessee that same night. During the first call, Hurley told the person to bring bond money to the jail for Roy Paul. During the second call, he instructed the person to wire the money rather than bringing it, and to meet him down the street from the jail as soon as he made bond. Appellant admits that Hurley called her in Nashville, Tennessee that night with a request to wire money, but contends that Hurley told her that the money was to be used to pay off a gambling debt he had incurred in prison.

In the early hours of October 9, 1983, appellant went to the Western Union office and wired $1200 to a bonding company in the name of Roy Paul. As the name of the sender she signed "Carl Jackson," and included a fictitious address. Appellant alleges that her husband had instructed her to do this. Later that day, Hurley, posing as Paul, was released from jail on Paul's bond.

On October 14, appellant met Hurley in Donaldson, Tennessee, and they drove to Knoxville where they stayed until October 17. They then drove back to Nashville and she dropped him off at a hotel. On October 18, appellant was interviewed at her home by U.S. Marshal Wayne Woodall. During this interview she received two seemingly innocuous telephone calls. After the second call she informed Woodall that Hurley was the caller, and that she had spoken to him in code to notify him that a law enforcement officer was present. She told Woodall that she wanted to help apprehend her husband; however, she met with Hurley two times subsequent to that without calling Woodall.

On appeal, appellant contends that all evidence of her post-escape contacts with Hurley was irrelevant and prejudicial to the charge of aiding and abetting Hurley's escape, and that the district court's failure to exclude this evidence deprived her of her right to a fair trial.

DISCUSSION

There is no dispute that, in wiring the money to her husband, appellant committed a substantive act which aided and abetted his escape from federal custody. The only issue at trial was her intent in wiring the money.

Rule 404(b), Fed.R.Evid., provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admissible as proof of intent. A subsequent act, as well as a prior act, can be used to show intent under Rule 404(b). United States v. Terebecki,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Ismail v. Cohen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 7 Febrero 1989
    ...prior to or subsequent to the incident in question, which are relevant to an actual issue in the case. See, e.g., United States v. Hurley, 755 F.2d 788, 790 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Riley, 657 F.2d 1377, 1388 (8th Cir.1981). Rule 404(b) requires a two-part analysis; first, consider......
  • U.S. v. Bank of New England, N.A., 86-1334
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 10 Junio 1987
    ...prove intent to commit the alleged illegal act. 8 United States v. Whalely, 786 F.2d 1229, 1232-33 (4th Cir.1986); United States v. Hurley, 755 F.2d 788, 790 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Arroyo-Angulo, 580 F.2d 1137, 1149 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 285, 58 L.Ed.2d ......
  • United States v. Valle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 Junio 2014
    ...565, 569 (2d Cir. 1990) ('"A subsequent act, as well as a prior act, can be used to show intent. . . ."') (quoting United States v. Hurley, 755 F.2d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1985)); United States v. Viruet, 539 F.2d 295, 296-97 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (upholding admission of evidence concern......
  • United States v. Curtin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 28 Agosto 2023
    ... ... in § 4241(d)(1) evaluations.") ...          That ... leaves us with Curtin's principal objection-that he was ... actually, physically hospitalized for ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT