TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Wayne Young

United States v. Young, 875 F.2d 868 (6th Cir. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
May 18, 1989
Docket
No. 87-2002
Citations
875 F.2d 8681989 WL 513901989 U.S. App. LEXIS 6979
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

875 F.2d 868

Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-2002.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 18, 1989.

Before ALAN E. NORRIS and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and CHARLES M. ALLEN * , Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

Appellant was convicted at a jury trial of the offense of possessing a sawed-off, unregistered shotgun. The shotgun was found in a room which the defendant acknowledged he occupied.

2

The only noteworthy contention of error made by the appellant is that the trial court allowed the admission in evidence of a sweat shirt worn by appellant at the time of his arrest, which bore the legend "9mm. is My Name, Terminator is My Game." Appellant does not challenge the trial court's admission of evidence that the government agents found a 9mm gun at the appellant's residence, or testimony of the appellant's propensity to violence, and his offers to use guns to enforce his wishes. The evidence pertaining to the appellant's threats and violence was introduced through a co-defendant, who was a girlfriend, for the purpose of showing that she had been coerced into making a false exculpatory statement.

3

Appellant argues that the evidence concerning the sweat shirt was improperly admitted under 404(b), and that even if it should have been admitted, that a limiting instruction should have been given. While the trial court did admit the evidence under 404(b), we believe that it was properly admissible under Rule 403. Therefore, there was no need for a limiting instruction.

4

AFFIRMED.

* The Honorable Charles M. Allen, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Kingins (Eddie Dale), 875 F.2d 868 (6th Cir. 1989) 57

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list