United States v. Reeves, 030609 FED11, 08-14399
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLOVIS A. REEVES, a.k.a. Clovis Reeves, a.k.a. C, a.k.a. Clovis Reed, a.k.a. K J, a.k.a. Keith Johnson, a.k.a. T, a.k.a. K, a.k.a. Alaray Reed, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before BIRCH, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 06, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D. C. Docket No. 07-00286-CR-1-CC-1
Clovis A. Reeves appeals his convictions on one count of conspiracy to make false statements in an application for the purchase of firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 371, seven counts of making false statements in an application for the purchase of firearms, 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(a)(1)(A), 2, and four counts of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2). The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court committed reversible error when it denied Reeves's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of 14 New Jersey police officers as to their recovery of firearms from crime scenes near his residences.
We review a district court's evidentiary ruling for abuse of discretion. United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005). "An abuse of discretion arises when the district court's decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact." Id.
"Relevant evidence" is broadly defined. United States v. Glasser, 773 F.2d 1553, 1559 n.4 (11th Cir. 1985). To be relevant, "(1) [t]he evidence must be probative of the proposition it is offered to prove, and (2) the proposition to be proved must be one that is of consequence to the determination of the action." Id. In general, "evidence introduced in a criminal trial should relate only to the specific offense charged in the indictment." United States v. Audsley, 486 F.2d 289, 290 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP