Journal Title
Wake Forest Law Review Online
Volume
14
Issue
1
First Page
99
Document Type
Article
Publication Information
2024
Abstract
Many courts—mostly federal, but also some state courts—are misapplying the United States Supreme Court's decision in the 1988 case United States v. Huddleston. These courts have used a single paragraph of dicta from the Huddleston opinion to craft multipart checklist-type "tests" that displace the single requirement of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (or corresponding state rules). This displacement risks the admission of other acts evidence without determining whether the evidence is relevant for a non-character purpose by means of inferences that do not involve character. These Huddleston tests thus undermine Rule 404(b)'s prohibition that other acts evidence is not admissible to prove action in accordance with character.
Of course, if the Supreme Court in Huddleston had established a test for the admissibility of other acts evidence, then federal courts would be bound to follow (and state courts might be wise to follow). But in fact, the Supreme Court in Huddleston did not decide anything specifically about the admissibility of other acts evidence, much less establish any test of admissibility. Contrary to "the Huddleston test" assertions, the case was not about the substantive requirement for admitting other acts evidence for a non-character purpose but instead was about the procedural requirements for admitting conditionally relevant evidence. Other acts evidence is one kind of conditionally relevant evidence; everything the Court in Huddleston said about other acts evidence applies with equal force to all other kinds of conditionally relevant evidence. Properly considered, Huddleston is a Rule 104(b) case, not a Rule 404(b) case.
Recommended Citation
Dora W. Klein, Against "the Huddleston Test," 14 Wake Forest L. Rev. Online 99 (2024).
