United States v. Guardia

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

135 F.3d 1326 (10th Cir. 1998)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 413Rule 403Propensity EvidenceSexual AssaultFed. R. Evid. 413Fed. R. Evid. 403Fed. R. Evid. 401

Facts

A federal grand jury charged Dr. David Guardia with sexual-abuse-related offenses arising from two gynecological examinations at Kirtland Air Force Base. The two complaining witnesses alleged that during their examinations Guardia engaged in improper direct clitoral contact exceeding medically appropriate techniques, and one alleged he said, "I love my job" during the exam. The government sought to introduce testimony from four other women who alleged similar abuse during gynecological examinations, though their accounts also differed in important respects, including different body areas touched, use of a medical instrument, and the presence of chaperons. Because all six women had unusual gynecological problems requiring different examinations and treatment, the district court concluded the additional testimony would confuse the issues.

Issue

Whether evidence offered under Federal Rule of Evidence 413 is subject to Rule 403 balancing, and if so, whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the proffered testimony of four additional alleged victims because of jury confusion.

Rule

Before admitting evidence under Rule 413, a court must find: (1) the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault; (2) the proffered evidence is evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense of sexual assault; and (3) the evidence is relevant, meaning it tends to show a propensity that has a bearing on the charged offense. Even if those requirements are met, the evidence remains subject to the ordinary Rule 403 balancing test, under which the court must weigh probative value against dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or cumulative proof.

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 Phoenix, Noah Benton is charged with sexually assaulting an adult coworker at an office retreat. The government offers testimony that, three years earlier in Denver, Benton forcibly kissed and groped another adult without consent.

What is the best analysis of the proffered testimony's admissibility under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 413 displaces Rule 404(b)'s usual ban on propensity use in sexual-assault cases, but only after three threshold findings: the defendant is accused of a sexual assault, the proffered evidence concerns another sexual assault, and the evidence is relevant. Even then, the evidence remains subject to ordinary Rule 403 balancing.