United States v. Hadley

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990 · Evidence

918 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1990)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 404(b)Rule 403prior bad actsintentremotenesssimilarityexpert testimony

Facts

Hadley, a former elementary school teacher at a Bureau of Indian Affairs school on the Navajo Reservation, was tried on counts arising from alleged sexual abuse of a student, Roy. Roy testified to three incidents of sexual molestation in late 1987 and early 1988, and the government also introduced testimony from other witnesses who said Hadley had forcibly sodomized and sexually abused them when they were minors. The government further called Dr. Rosenzweig, a child psychiatrist, to testify about general behavioral characteristics of child sexual abuse victims. The jury convicted Hadley on three counts involving Roy and acquitted him on two other counts involving different students.

Issue

Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony about Hadley's prior sexual abuse under Rule 404(b) and expert testimony about general child sexual abuse victim behavior, whether sufficient evidence supported the attempted aggravated sexual abuse conviction, and whether the Sentencing Guidelines applied to conduct occurring in October 1987.

Rule

Under Ninth Circuit law, Rule 404(b) is an inclusionary rule under which prior bad act evidence is admissible unless it proves nothing but criminal propensity. Such evidence is admissible if there is sufficient proof for the jury to find the defendant committed the prior act, the act is not too remote in time, and the act is introduced to prove a material issue; if offered to prove intent, the prior act must be similar to the charged offense. Even if admissible under Rule 404(b), the evidence must still survive Rule 403 balancing. Expert testimony describing general behavioral characteristics of a class of abuse victims is admissible if it assists the trier of fact and does not vouch for the credibility of particular witnesses; Frye applies only to evidence based on a novel scientific technique. For attempt, the government must prove specific intent and conduct amounting to more than mere preparation—some appreciable fragment of the crime in progress. The Sentencing Guidelines do not apply to conduct occurring before November 1, 1987.

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 Albuquerque for abusive sexual contact with a minor student, the government offers testimony that eight years earlier the defendant, a middle-school coach, isolated another student in a storage room and engaged in similar sexual touching. The defendant argues the evidence is inadmissible because it mainly shows he is a bad person.

Under the governing rule, which is the best analysis of the prior-act evidence?

Explanation. Rule 404(b) is treated as an inclusionary rule: prior-act evidence is excluded only when it proves nothing but criminal propensity. Under the majority opinion, the evidence is admissible if there is sufficient proof for the jury to find the defendant committed the act, the act is not too remote, and it is offered on a material issue such as intent. A prior conviction is not required, and the fact that the act involved another victim does not automatically bar admission.