Whether a defendant's plea of not guilty alone makes his prior convictions admissible under Rule 404(b) to show 'state of mind'

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The circuits are split on how to determine the admissibility of a criminal defendant’s prior bad act under Rule 404(b). Some circuits hold that prior bad acts are admissible under Rule 404(b) once a defendant puts knowledge at issue by entering a plea of not guilty, regardless of whether the defendant actively contests that element at trial. Other circuits “reject the suggestion that ‘claiming innocence’ is sufficient to place knowledge at issue for purposes of Rule 404(b),” and require that an element of an offense, to which the other acts evidence is relevant, be actively contested at trial. United States v. Caldwell, 760 F.3d 267, 281 (3% Cir. 2014). In this case, the Eleventh Circuit, adhering to circuit precedent, held that “[b]y pleading not guilty,” the defendant made his prior convictions admissible under Rule 404(b) because the government had “to show intent, state of mind, and absence or mistake or accident.” A-2. The Eleventh Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that “his prior convictions were not relevant because he intended to present an alibi defense.” A-3 (“it does not matter what defense [the defendant] said he intended to raise.”). The present case, therefore, presents the question: By pleading not guilty, can a defendant make his prior convictions admissible under Rule 404(b) to show “state of mind”? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no