The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Nichols, 534 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1976):
That the admission of this evidence was prejudicial is obvious. But it also had substantial probative value. Evidence of the check cashing with identification by stolen credit cards would dispel the notion that defendant was unaware that the credit cards were lost or stolen. Cf. Parnell v. State, 218 So.2d 535, 538-39 (Fla.App.1969) (in prosecution for unlawfully receiving and concealing stolen fur coat, evidence that defendant attempted to "fence" stolen credit cards along with the stolen fur coat to an undercover officer relevant to issue of "guilty knowledge or intent"). We find no abuse of discretion.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.