United States v. Adkison

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 14, 2000
• Docket: 99-50584
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-50584 Summary Calendar _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDGAR ADKISON, also known as Edgar Adkinson,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 98-CR-66-2 _________________________________________________________________ April 13, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Adkison appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting

the distribution of crack cocaine. He asserts that the district

court abused its discretion in permitting the government to

introduce as evidence his 1991 conviction for possession of a

controlled substance. He argues that the prior conviction was

irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting

the prior conviction since the prior possession offense was similar

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. to the charged distribution offense and was thus highly probative

on the issue of Adkison’s knowledge and intent to commit the

charged offense. See United States v. Ponce, 8 F.3d 989, 993-94

(5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 192-93 (5th

Cir. 1993). The fact that the prior conviction happened eight

years earlier does not, by itself, warrant exclusion. See United

States v. Chavez, 119 F.3d 342, 346-47 (5th Cir. 1997). Any

potential undue prejudice was minimized by the district court’s

limiting instructions to the jury. See, e.g., Ponce, 8 F.3d at

994; Gadison, 8 F.3d at 192.

Adkison also challenges the district court’s refusal to permit

him to cross-examine Jarvis Ingram, a cooperating government

witness, regarding the probation officer’s recommendation that

Ingram be denied an acceptance of responsibility reduction.

Although the district court refused to allow cross-examination

regarding the probation officer’s recommendation, it permitted

defense counsel to cross-examine Ingram regarding the substance of

the alleged untruthfulness on which the recommendation was based,

i.e., Ingram’s denial of involvement in another drug transaction

that occurred on July 4, 1998. Because the subject which the

district court excluded from cross-examination would not have given

the jury a significantly different impression of Ingram’s

credibility, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

limiting cross-examination of him. See United States v. Baresh,

790 F.2d 392, 400 (5th Cir. 1986).

2 A F F I R M E D.