United States v. Hite

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004 · Evidence

364 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2004)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 404(b)Rule 403Rule 804(b)(3)Rule 804(a)(5)hearsaystatement against penal interestunavailability

Facts

Probation officers searched Hite's bedroom and found two firearms in a backpack among clothing at the foot of his bed; Hite denied ownership and said the guns belonged to his cousin, Timothy Bickers. The government offered testimony from Hite's former fiancée, Patricia Stuart, that during their relationship she saw Hite possess the revolver, open its chamber to show a bullet, spin the chamber, and pull the trigger a few times. The district court allowed that limited testimony but excluded references to 'Russian roulette' and to the gun being pointed at her head or face. Hite sought to introduce testimony from his father and a family friend that Bickers had said the guns were his, but the court excluded the statements as hearsay under Rule 804(b)(3).

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting Stuart's limited testimony about Hite's prior handling of the revolver as evidence relevant to possession, and by excluding testimony about Bickers' out-of-court claim of ownership under Rule 804(b)(3)?

Rule

Evidence is not 'other acts' evidence under Rule 404(b) when it is inextricably intertwined with the charged offense, including when it tends to prove an element of the crime such as knowing possession; such evidence is admissible unless unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. A hearsay statement under Rule 804(b)(3) is admissible only if the proponent shows that the declarant is unavailable despite process or other reasonable means and good-faith efforts, that the statement was against the declarant's penal interest, and that corroborating circumstances clearly indicate its trustworthiness.

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 Milwaukee, federal prosecutors charge Nolan Pierce with knowingly possessing a pistol with an obliterated serial number found in a duffel bag beside his bed. The government offers testimony from his former roommate, Ava Moreno, that eight months earlier she saw Nolan open the cylinder of that same pistol, display a cartridge inside, close it, and dry-fire it several times.

How should the court most likely rule on the testimony?

Explanation. The majority treated testimony about a defendant's prior handling of the same firearm as not barred character evidence when it tended to prove an element of the charged crime—knowing possession. Evidence is inextricably intertwined when it tends to prove an element or explains the circumstances of the offense. Because Ava's testimony shows knowledge of and control over the same pistol, it is admissible unless unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value under Rule 403. (Derived from United States v. Hite (2004).)