Davies v. Benbenek

In section 1983 action alleging that defendant-police officer violated plaintiff’s rights by using excessive force during plaintiff’s arrest, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing defendant to introduce evidence that: (1) during disputed encounter, plaintiff had threatened to sue defendant and others and had indicated that he had filed prior lawsuits; and (2) certain items were recovered from plaintiff’s home, and that plaintiff was distraught when police had declined his request to attribute said items to plaintiff’s nephew. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that both statements constituted impermissible character evidence under Rule 404(b) and were unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403, where: (1) neither statement violated Rule 404(b) since both statements were introduced to establish what was said and done in critical moments before plaintiff sustained his injuries, and thus were not used to establish any negative propensity inference; and (2) plaintiff failed to establish any prejudice arising out of introduction of either statement into evidence, since there was nothing inherently emotional about telling officers that he had filed prior lawsuits, and jury was not given description of items found by police in plaintiff’s home.