United States v. Ann Ludwig

MEMORANDUM

1. Ludwig argues the district court erred by admitting evidence of her poor financial condition and by permitting the government to argue that her financial condition gave her a motive to embezzle. We reject both arguments.

First, we review evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion, United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1205 (9th Cir.2004), and will reverse only if the error more likely than not affected the verdict. See United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th Cir.2004). Evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is admissible (1) to show “an unexplained, abrupt change in circumstances,” or (2) if it is “accompanied by evidence of a specific and immediate financial need.” United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, it is not admissible to prove motive. See United States v. Mitchell, 172 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (9th Cir.1999).

Here, the district court admitted the evidence of Ludwig’s financial circumstances for the specific limited purpose of “demonstrating the source of cash for the payment of [Ludwig’s] bills.” Evidence of Ludwig’s impecunity was probative of “an unexplained, abrupt change…