USA v. Wilson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CR-25-398-SLP
)
DOYLE GLEN WILSON, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
The Government has filed a Rule 404(b) Notice and Brief in Support Thereof [Doc.
No. 91]. Defendant has filed a Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 96] as to certain evidence
included in the Rule 404(b) Notice. The Government has not responded to the Motion.
For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion in Limine is DENIED.
I. Background
The Indictment, in this multi-defendant case, charges Defendant with Count 6,
Felon in Possession of Firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and Count 7, Possession
of Unregistered Firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). There are eight firearms
identified in Count 6. One of those eight firearms is also the firearm which serves as the
basis of the charge in Count 7 – a High Standard, model 200, 12-gauge weapon from a
shotgun (the sawed-off shotgun).
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 103 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 6

On November 13, 2025, on motion of the Government, the Court dismissed Count
6 of the Indictment, leaving Defendant charged with only Count 7. See Order [Doc. No.
67].
II. Discussion
The Government identifies the following evidence in its Rule 404(b) Notice:
1. Police investigated an assault committed by co-defendant D’Angelo Wilson
in June 2025.
2. Police reviewed jail calls between D’Angelo Wilson, his girlfriend (V.G.)
and Defendant, and discussed the police investigation of a June 2025 assault and the
suspected firearm in somewhat veiled terms.
3. Defendant took custody of the shortened shotgun from V.G.’s home and took
it to his own home.1
Defendant’s charge is based on conduct occurring on or about July 11, 2025. The
activities of co-defendant D’Angelo Wilson, V.G., and Defendant leading up to July 11,
2025 are the subject of the Rule 404(b) Notice. The Government asserts that the evidence
related to these activities “will establish that [Defendant] intentionally possessed the
shortened shotgun and fully explain the circumstances surrounding the investigation.”
Govt.’s Notice at 4. The Government further asserts that the evidence “explains the basis
1 The Government also identified in its 404(b) Notice evidence that Defendant had other
firearms and ammunition stored at his home. Defendant filed a separate Motion in Limine as to
that evidence, see Doc. No. 93, to which the Government responded, see Doc. No. 97. The Court
has issued an Order preliminarily finding the other firearms and ammunition evidence
admissible. See Order [Doc. No. 102].
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 103 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 6

for the investigation” and “[w]ithout such context, jurors would likely wonder why police
would obtain a search warrant on the home of a man such as Doyle Wilson.” Id.
1. The Evidence is Intrinsic to the Crime Charged
The Court first addresses whether the evidence at issue in the Government’s Notice
is intrinsic or extrinsic to the crime charged. This initial inquiry is necessitated because
Rule 404(b) does not apply to other act evidence that is intrinsic to the crime charged.
United States v. Parker, 553 F.3d 1309, 1314 (10th Cir. 2009).
As a general matter, intrinsic evidence is “directly connected to the circumstances
of the crime and provides contextual or background information to the jury.” Id.
(quotations omitted). Conversely, extrinsic evidence “is not intimately connected or
blended with the factual circumstances of the charged offense.” Id.
The Court finds the evidence of the assault, the jail calls, and the transport of the
suspected firearm are intrinsic to the crime charged. The firearm used in the assault is
believed to be the same firearm found at Defendant’s residence. As described in the
Government’s Notice, jail calls indicate that co-defendant D’Angelo Wilson instructed
V.G. to throw the firearm away. Based on this information, law enforcement sought
permission to search V.G.’s home, which she denied. V.G. then communicated to co-
defendant D’Angelo Wilson that police had wanted to search her home. Co-defendant
D’Angelo Wilson relayed the information to Defendant and Defendant told co-defendant
D’Angelo Wilson that he had been to V.G.’s house to “pick something up.” Law
enforcement believed, based on these communications, that the firearm used in the assault
had been stored at V.G.’s home but was then transported by Defendant to his home. Law
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 103 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 6

enforcement obtained and executed a search warrant at Defendant’s home and found the
suspected firearm, a sawed off shotgun.
According to the Government, Defendant’s possession of the firearm resulted from
communications with co-defendant D’Angelo Wilson. And his transport of the firearm
from V.G.’s house to his own residence establish his knowledge and possession of the
firearm. Although Defendant challenges the nature of this evidence as intrinsic, he does
so in wholly conclusory fashion. He states he is “wholly unaware of the facts and
circumstances of the alleged assault” and the assault is “unrelated” to his charge. Def.’s
Mot. at 2. But the evidence the Government seeks to introduce is necessary to explain the
basis for the investigation of Defendant and the execution of the search warrant. The Court
concludes, therefore, that the evidence is intrinsic to the crime charged and outside the
ambit of Rule 404(b). Accordingly, the Court preliminarily finds the Government may
introduce such evidence, but this preliminary ruling does not prohibit Defendant from
raising the issue again.
2. Admissibility of Rule 404(b) Evidence
Alternatively, the Court preliminarily finds that even if the evidence is not intrinsic,
it is admissible. Rule 404(b) provides that evidence of “a crime, wrong, or other act” is
inadmissible to prove the character of the accused, but “may be admissible for another
purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1)-(2). Four factors
govern the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts under Rule 404(b):
(1) the evidence must be offered for a proper purpose; (2) it must be relevant; (3) its
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 103 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 6

probative value must not be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice;
and (4) the court must give a proper limiting instruction if it is requested by the defendant.
United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135, 1143 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Huddleston v. United
States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92) (1988)).
a. Proper Purpose
The Government identifies “motive, knowledge, intent, preparation, plan, lack of
accident, and absence of mistake” as the basis for admitting the evidence. Notice at 5. The
evidence here shows, at a minimum, Defendant’s motive, knowledge, intent and plan.
“Evidence is admitted for a proper purpose if allowed for one or more of the enumerated
purposes in Rule 404(b).” United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152, 1156 (10th Cir. 2006).
“[I]f the other act evidence is relevant and tends to prove a material fact other than the
defendant’s criminal disposition, it is offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b) and
may be excluded only under Rule 403.” Parker, 553 F.3d at 1314. The Government has
shown a proper purpose for admission of the evidence.
b. Relevance
Evidence is relevant if it “make[s] a necessary element of the offense more or less
probable.” United States v. Henthorn, 864 F.3d 1241, 1249 (10th Cir. 2017); see also
Mares, 441 F.3d at 1158 (evidence is relevant “it if tends to prove or disprove one of the
elements necessary to the charged offense”). Here, the Government must prove that
Defendant knowingly possessed a firearm and knew the specific characteristics of the
firearm that required it to be registered. See 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The evidence certainly
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 103 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 6

speaks to whether Defendant’s possession of the firearm was knowing and demonstrates
his motive and reasons for obtaining possession of the firearm.
c. Prejudice
The Court further addresses whether the proffered evidence should be excluded
under Rule 403 on grounds that “its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger
of . . . unfair prejudice . . . .” Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Court finds the probative value of the
evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. As set forth above,
the evidence explains the basis for Defendant’s possession of the firearm and his
knowledge and intent with respect to the same.
d. Limiting Instruction
To the extent Defendant deems a limiting instruction is warranted, Defendant may
submit a proper limiting instruction for the Court’s consideration. The Government does
not oppose the same. See Govt.’s Notice at 5, n.1.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Information
from Government’s 404(b) Notice [Doc. No. 96] is DENIED. The denial is without
prejudice to Defendant challenging the admissibility of the evidence at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:25-cr-00398-SLP Document 103 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 6