The Standard
In a 104(b) hearing, the court is to consider whether enough evidence has been produced where a reasonable jury could—by a preponderance of the evidence—find the conditional fact present.
Huddleston v. United States
485 U.S. 681 (1988).
In the present case, Huddleston had been arrested for selling stolen goods interstate. The main question in the case was whether Huddleston had knowledge the goods were stolen (being provided by a third-party). Seeking to establish knowledge, the state sought to introduce two other similar acts; stolen appliances sold by Huddleston, and apparently stolen televisions sold by Huddleston. In each circumstance, the goods were provided by the same third-party.
Huddleston contended that the televisions could not be entered into evidence because the state failed to prove that they were stolen, their relevance being conditioned on being stolen.
Admittance of this evidence is based on rule 404(b) and 104(b). To determine whether the conditional relevance here applies, the state may use other similar acts taken together as a whole. There is no need to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard. Using these rules, the evidence of the apparently stolen televisions may be admitted.
Dowling v. United States
493 U.S. 342 (1990).
The defendant was accused of robbing a bank. To tie his connection to the bank and a co-robber, the state attempted to introduce evidence from a previous trial where the defendant was identified as a robber. To this, the defendant objected because he was acquitted in the previous case. Can the evidence be admitted?
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
