United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Jeff North's
(“Defendant”) Motion to Exclude evidence of his
prior felony convictions ; Motion In Limine to prohibit
impeachment regarding evidence of his prior convictions ;
and Motion to Sever Counts . Also before the Court is the
Government's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and
Testimony to preclude Defendant from impeaching a government
26, 2016, a grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia
returned a three-count indictment  charging Defendant
with Carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1)
(Count 1); Discharging a Firearm During a Federal Crime of
Violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii) (Count 2); and Possession of
a Firearm by a Convicted Felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 9224(e) (Count 3). The Indictment
alleges that, on or about March 23, 2015, Defendant shot
Johnny Dansby (“Dansby”) and stole his vehicle.
has six prior felony convictions:
1. On April 8, 1985, Defendant pled guilty to aggravated
assault, simple battery, and criminal interference with
property. (See  at 3).
2. On February 9, 1987, the Defendant pled guilty in Fulton
County, Georgia Superior Court to aggravated assault,
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony,
and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
3. On October 9, 1995, the Defendant pled guilty in Fulton
County, Georgia Superior Court to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon. (See [79.2]).
4. On November 12, 1998, the Defendant pled guilty in Fulton
County, Georgia Superior Court to armed robbery, aggravated
battery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon. (See [79.3]).
5. On August 6, 2004, the Defendant was convicted of
possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute.
6. On October 3, 2013, the Defendant pled guilty in Fulton
County, Georgia Superior Court to possession of cocaine and
heroin with the intent to distribute. (See [79.7]).
16, 2017, Defendant filed three motions. The first was his
Motion to Exclude Evidence of Mr. North's Prior Felony
Convictions. (). In its Response , the Government
noticed its intent to introduce evidence of Defendant's
three prior felon-in-possession convictions to show the
Defendant's “motive, opportunity, intent,
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, ” and to
establish “the absence of mistake or accident” in
the Defendant's conduct.
also filed his Motion to Sever, seeking to sever Counts One
and Two from Count Three. ().
next filed his Motion in Limine - Impeachment by Mr.
North's Criminal History  to prohibit the Government
from impeaching Defendant with evidence of his prior
October 16, 2017, the Government filed its Motion in Limine
to Exclude Evidence and Testimony to prohibit Defendant from
impeaching Dansby regarding certain prior convictions as well
as his failure to appear at evidentiary hearings held on
January 12, 2017  and March 1, 2017 , causing
Defendant to obtain a material witness warrant. (). These
motions are addressed separately below.
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of
Mr. North's Prior Felony Convictions
moves the Court to exclude evidence of his six prior
convictions for various drug, assault, and firearms charges.
Defendant argues that he will be unfairly prejudiced if the
jury learns of these convictions. He has offered to stipulate
to his status as a felon. ( at 1).
Rule 404(b), “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other
act is not admissible to prove a person's character in
order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted
in accordance with the character.” Fed.R.Evid.
404(b)(1). However, “[t]his evidence may be admissible
for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity,
intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of
mistake, or lack of accident.” Id. 404(b)(2).
To admit evidence under Rule 404(b), three conditions must be
met: (1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than
the defendant's character; (2) the act must be
established by sufficient proof to permit a jury finding that
the defendant committed the extrinsic act; and (3) the
probative value of the evidence must not be substantially