This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Beasley (D) was a research chemist who acquired prescriptions for narcotics from several doctors, purportedly for the purpose of conducting experiments on vegetables. The government claimed that D actually sold the drugs. D was charged with seven counts of obtaining Dilaudid with intent to distribute. The offenses for which he was charged occurred over a 10-month period in 1980 and 1981. However, the prosecution offered evidence of D's drug activity occurring between 1981 and 1984. It argued that, although some of the events occurred after the offenses charged, they were admissible under Rule 404(b) to show pattern. The court repeatedly told the jury that the purpose of the evidence was to show D's 'intent.' D appealed his conviction.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.