Rendon-Duarte

DISCUSSION

I.

[1] Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) limits the admissibility of evidence of prior acts to those which serve as proof of “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” We use a four- part test to determine the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b). United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1993).

(1) it must prove a material element of the offense for which the defendant is now charged; (2) in cer- tain cases, the prior conduct must be similar to the charged conduct; (3) proof of the prior conduct must be based upon sufficient evidence; and (4) the prior conduct must not be too remote in time.

Id. We need address only the first part of the test. UNITED STATES v. RENDON-DUARTE 7369 The government offered “bad act” testimony from two police officers. Sergeant Kass testified that in June 2003, in connection with a traffic stop of a vehicle in which Rendon- Duarte was riding, two weapons were found stashed in the cover of the sunroof of the car. Lieutenant Gilliam testified that in March 2001, when a car driven by Rendon-Duarte was checked following an accident, a weapon and…