Huddleston v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Evidence

485 U.S. 681 (1988)

Updated August 1, 2026

EvidenceRule 404(b)conditional relevanceFederal Rule of Evidence 404(b)Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b)Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a)Federal Rule of Evidence 402Federal Rule of Evidence 403

Facts

Huddleston was charged with possessing and selling stolen Memorex videocassette tapes, and the only material issue at trial was whether he knew the tapes were stolen. The government introduced testimony that he had also offered to sell large quantities of televisions at a low price and later arranged a sale of stolen Amana appliances, all allegedly supplied by Leroy Wesby. Huddleston testified that Wesby had represented the goods were legitimate and that he sold them only on commission. The district court admitted the similar-act evidence only to show knowledge and instructed the jury not to use it to prove character.

Issue

Must a district court, before admitting Rule 404(b) similar-act evidence, itself find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act occurred? Or is it enough that there is sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to find that the conditional fact is true?

Rule

A trial court need not make a preliminary finding under Rule 104(a) that the government proved the other act by a preponderance of the evidence before admitting Rule 404(b) evidence. Instead, when relevance depends on whether the other act occurred, Rule 104(b) applies, and the evidence is admissible if there is sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor. The court does not weigh credibility or itself decide the conditional fact; it asks only whether the jury could reasonably so find.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Columbus, Ohio, Devin Marks is charged with knowingly transporting stolen tablets in interstate commerce. The government offers evidence that six months earlier Devin brokered sales of deeply discounted cameras from the same source, arguing that the prior incident shows Devin knew the tablets in the charged deal were stolen.

Should the trial judge admit the camera-sale evidence?

Explanation. The threshold inquiry is whether the other-acts evidence is probative of a material issue other than character. Knowledge is a proper noncharacter purpose under Rule 404(b). The judge need not make a Rule 104(a) finding that the act was proved by a preponderance; instead, if relevance depends on a conditional fact, the judge asks under Rule 104(b) whether the jury could reasonably find that fact.