United States v. Enjady

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998 · Evidence

134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFed. R. Evid. 413Fed. R. Evid. 403propensity evidencesexual assaultdue processequal protectionplain error

Facts

The alleged rape occurred on the Mescalero Apache reservation after the complainant, A, had been drinking at her house and either passed out or fell asleep; she testified that she awoke to find defendant raping her. Defendant initially denied returning to A's residence or having physical contact with her, but after a DNA match he admitted having sex with A and claimed it was consensual. The government sought to introduce testimony from B that defendant had raped her about two years earlier, and the district court admitted that testimony under Rule 413 after considering Rule 403. At trial, the prosecution also cross-examined defendant about specific alleged violent conduct toward women that had not resulted in convictions.

Issue

Whether Rule 413 applied to defendant's trial, whether Rule 413 is unconstitutional because it permits propensity evidence in sexual assault cases, whether the district court properly admitted B's prior-rape testimony under Rule 403, and whether the prosecution's cross-examination about unconvicted violent acts required reversal.

Rule

Rule 413 applies to trials commenced after its effective date, including trials in cases already pending before that date. Rule 413 does not violate due process on its face so long as Rule 403 remains applicable as a safeguard against fundamentally unfair prejudice. In applying Rule 403 to Rule 413 evidence, a court should consider how clearly the prior act has been proved, how probative it is of the material fact for which it is offered, how seriously that fact is disputed, whether less prejudicial evidence is available, how likely the evidence is to induce an improperly based verdict, how much it will distract from the central issues, and how time-consuming proof of the prior conduct will be; the court must make a preliminary finding that a jury could reasonably find by a preponderance that the other act occurred.

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 sexual assault prosecution in Albuquerque, the defendant was indicted in May 2024. Trial began in August 2025, after a new federal evidentiary amendment expressly stated that it applies to all trials commenced after July 1, 2025, including trials in already-pending cases.

If the defendant argues the amendment cannot apply because the indictment predated July 1, 2025, how should the court rule under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that where Congress clearly amended the effective-date language to cover all trials commenced after the rule’s effective date, the rule applied even though the indictment had been filed earlier. The doctrine treats rules of pleading and proof as applicable to later trials when the legislature clearly directs that result.