USA v. Cathey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 25-CR-202-JFH
CHANCE ALLEN CATHEY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Government’s Notice of Intent to Admit Evidence as Res Gestae or
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (“Government’s Notice”). Dkt. No. 20. Defendant
Chance Allen Cathey has not objected to the Government’s Notice. However, in the interest of
efficiency, the Court will issue this preliminary ruling on the admission of such evidence. For the
following reasons, the evidence proffered in the Government’s Notice is ADMISSIBLE.
BACKGROUND
The Government charges Defendant with two Counts in the Indictment. Dkt. No. 2. Count
One charges Defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § §
922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). Id. at 1. More relevant here, Count Two charges Defendant with unlawfully
transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C § 2312. Id. at
1-2. To prosecute Defendant under Court Two, the Government seeks to admit evidence of the
following prior acts:
• On or about December 26, 2023, Defendant, while driving the vehicle named
in Count Two of the Indictment from Oklahoma into Arkansas, knew that the
owner of the vehicle was dead in the trunk, and along with his accomplice,
disposed of the corpse by dumping it into a water well.
• Over the course of several days following the disposal of the corpse, Defendant
attempted to sell the vehicle named in Count Two of the Indictment.
6:25-cr-00202-JFH Document 26 Filed in ED/OK on 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Dkt. No. 20 at 1. The Government notified Defendant of its intent to submit this evidence on
November 21, 2025. Id. To date, Defendant has not responded or objected to the Government’s
Notice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will admit this evidence at trial.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
The Government first argues that Defendant’s prior acts are admissible as res gestae
evidence. Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is inadmissible to prove a defendant’s “character
in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). But res gestae evidence is a narrow exception to Rule 404(b)’s general
prohibition on other bad acts evidence. Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is res gestae when it
is “inextricably intertwined with the charged crime such that a witness’s testimony would have
been confusing and incomplete without mention of the prior act.” United States v. Piette, 45 F.4th
1142, 1155 (10th Cir. 2022). In other words, res gestae evidence is evidence which is “part and
parcel of the proof of the offense charged” and which “is necessary to a full presentation of the
case or is appropriate in order to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate
context.” United States v. Kimball, 73 F.3d 269, 272 (10th Cir. 1995).
Here, Count Two charges Defendant with violating 18 U.S.C § 2312, which makes it
unlawful to (1) transport a stolen motor vehicle (2) in interstate commerce (3) while knowing that
the vehicle was stolen. 18 U.S.C. § 2312; see also United States v. Williamson, 806 F.2d 216, 221
(10th Cir. 1986). Driving the stolen vehicle from Oklahoma to Arkansas with its legal owner’s
corpse in the trunk, dumping the corpse into a water well, and selling the vehicle several days later
are all “inextricably intertwined” and relevant to the offense because they show how Defendant
obtained and transferred possession of the car, whether he knew the car belonged to someone else,
and why the owner never reported the vehicle stolen. And although this evidence is prejudicial, it
6:25-cr-00202-JFH Document 26 Filed in ED/OK on 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
does not substantially outweigh its highly probative effect. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Indeed, this
evidence speaks directly to several elements of the crime and provides necessary facts to aid the
jury’s understanding of Defendant’s charged conduct. For these reasons, this evidence is
admissible as res gestae evidence.
Furthermore, even if the evidence was not res gestae, it is still admissible under Rule
404(b). As stated above, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is inadmissible to prove a defendant’s
“character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). However, such evidence may be admissible for other
purposes, such as to demonstrate motive, opportunity, preparation, plan, intent, knowledge,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). In weighing the admissibility of
this evidence under Rule 404(b), courts consider the following factors: (1) whether the evidence
is offered for a proper purpose; (2) its relevance; (3) whether the probative value of the evidence
is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) whether the Court can give a limiting
instruction if requested by Defendant. United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135, 1144 (10th Cir.
2007) (citing Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691 (1988)).
All of these factors favor admission. First, this evidence is offered for a proper purpose—
to show Defendant’s knowledge that the vehicle was stolen, his intent and plan to transport and
sell a stolen vehicle, and his absence of mistake and lack of accident in transporting and selling a
stolen vehicle. Second, these purposes are relevant for proving elements of the offense, including
whether Defendant transported the vehicle, had permission to operate the vehicle, and knew the
vehicle was stolen. Third, although this evidence is prejudicial, it does not substantially outweigh
its highly probative effect as explained earlier. Finally, the Court could give a limiting instruction
if Defendant requests. Thus, this evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b) as well.
6:25-cr-00202-JFH Document 26 Filed in ED/OK on 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the evidence proffered in the Government’s Notice
[Dkt. No. 20] is ADMISSIBLE. This ruling is preliminary and subject to change as the case
unfolds or at the Court’s discretion. See Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th Cir. 1995).
Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.
JOHN F. HEIL, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:25-cr-00202-JFH Document 26 Filed in ED/OK on 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4