United States v. David Johnson

MEMORANDUM

David Lincoln Johnson appeals his convictions and sentence for mail fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s request to introduce evidence of his co-defendant’s prior acts. The evidence that purported to show Christiano Hashimoto’s prior misrep- . resentations was prohibited propensity evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). See United States v. Lukashov, 694 F.3d 1107, 1117-18 (9th Cir.2012). Even if the evidence had been admissible, it was not relevant. See Fed.R.Evid. 401. Hashimoto’s past activities with other companies and his apparent misrepresentations regarding their valuations were not relevant to assessing the veracity of the witnesses here, who testified to the misrepresentations they were told by Johnson.

Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in alternatively holding that Johnson’s proffered evidence of Hash-imoto’s prior acts should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Presenting evidence of Hashimoto’s prior acts would have been time consuming and may have potentially confused the jury.…