United States v. William Courtney Batts

558 F.2d 513 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Courtney BATTS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 76-2308. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 3, 1977. As Amended Aug. 2, 1977. Murray B. Guterson, Seattle, Wash., argued, for defendant-appellant. Peter Mair, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., argued, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before KENNEDY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and VAN PELT, * District Judge. J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Batts and one Michael Heiges were charged in a two-count indictment with the importation of hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960(a)(1) and 960(b) (2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 and for possession of hashish with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Mr. Heiges, not wishing to test the fact-finding process, fled the jurisdiction and is still at large. Batts was tried by a jury and was convicted on both counts. Batts appeals and we affirm. 2 The sole issue presented for review is whether it was error to allow the government to introduce, in its…

Batts and one Michael Heiges were charged in a two-count indictment with the importation of hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 and for possession of hashish with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . Mr. Heiges, not wishing to test the fact-finding process, fled the jurisdiction and is still at large. Batts was tried by a jury and was convicted on both counts. Batts appeals and we affirm.

The sole issue presented for review is whether it was error to allow the government to introduce, in its rebuttal case, evidence of prior criminal activity of the appellant.

The facts taken in the light most favorable to the government reveal that Batts and Heiges arrived in Heiges’ El Camino truck at the port of entry near Lynden, Washington. A subsequent search at the port of entry disclosed 15 bricks of hashish hidden in the wall of the truckbed. The concealed compartment in the wall of the truckbed was covered by a metal plate secured by phillips head screws. A set of *515 tools which contained numerous phillips head screwdrivers was also found in the truck.

A detailed account of…

dissenting:

The majority opinion all but concedes that its holding contradicts the law of this circuit which mandates that the exclusionary rule apply where illegally seized evidence is proffered to show prior bad acts. The opinion also contravenes express provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The majority justifies its departure from these authorities either by attempted factual distinctions that are wholly unpersuasive or by arguments that have been expressly rejected by the draftsmen of the Federal Rules of Evidence. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

The majority must agree that Batts did not open the subject of his previous drug use. He briefly testified about his residence, education, and background, as will any defendant who takes the stand. Of necessity he then related the events at the customs station on the day of his arrest. The prosecution knew that Batts had been arrested on cocaine charges seven months before the incident at bar. On cross-examination the prosecution sought to find an opening by which it might introduce into evidence the defendant’s prior bad acts. It took great pains to question Batts about the cocaine spoon he was wearing when he…