United States v. Eugene Timothy Allums , 142 F. App'x 404 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 27, 2005
No. 04-16355
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 03-00334-CR-T-23MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EUGENE TIMOTHY ALLUMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 27, 2005)
Before CARNES, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Timothy Allums appeals his convictions for attempt to kill, and
solicitation of another to kill, employees of the United States Government on
account of their official duties, and solicitation of another to kill witnesses with
intent to prevent testimony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 373(a), 1114, and
1512(a)(1)(A). The government’s theory and proof was that Allums committed
these crimes in an attempt to prevent his conviction on earlier charges of
kidnapping and transporting across state lines a minor, his thirteen-year old step-
daughter. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its
discretion in admitting prosecutorial comments and testimony about Allums’s
sexual relationship with his minor step-daughter over his Fed. R. Evid. 403
objection.
We review a district court’s decision not to exclude evidence pursuant to
Rule 403 only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507,
1524 (11th Cir. 1994). Rule 403 permits a district court to exclude relevant
evidence only when “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence.” We consider “Rule 403 . . . an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly because it allows a court to exclude admittedly probative
evidence.” Ross, 33 F.3d at 1524. As such, we “narrowly circumscribe” a trial
court’s discretion to exclude evidence as unduly prejudicial. United States v.
2
Cross, 928 F.2d 1030, 1048 (11th Cir. 1991). “The ‘major function’ of Rule 403
‘is limited to excluding matter of scant or cumulative probative force, dragged in
by the heels for the sake of its prejudicial effect.’” Id., 928 F.2d at 1048.
There was no abuse of discretion. Testimony about Allums’s sexual
relationship with his minor step-daughter was admissible to demonstrate his
motive for committing the charged offenses, as well as to demonstrate the motive
of Carl Hollander, a key government witness, in assisting the government in its
investigation of Allums. See United States v. Church, 955 F.2d 688, 700 (11th
Cir. 1992). In other words, the evidence about what Allums had done to his minor
step-daughter “pertain[ed] to the chain of events explaining the context, motive,
and set-up of the crime,” and “form[ed] an integral and natural part of an account
of the crime, or [was] necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.”
United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 1493, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985). Because the
prejudicial effect of this testimony did not substantially outweigh its probative
value, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony.
Therefore, we affirm Allums’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3