Sixth Circuit Reverses Dentist’s Conviction For Improperly Prescribing Morphine Based on Improper Admission of Evidence He Called His Assistant “White Trash” When Firing Her

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1)-(2) state the following:

(1) Prohibited Uses . Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses . This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

As the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion yesterday in United States v. Sadrinia, 2025 WL 1122300 (6th Cir. 2025), even if evidence doesn’t satisfy Rule 404(b), courts can still admit it if it is “‘intrinsic’ to the charged crimes. Evidence is ‘intrinsic’ when the acts are part of the same ‘criminal episode’ as the charged offense, or ‘inextricably intertwined’ with it.” But the problem is that the district court in Sadrinia allowed for the admission of evidence that was far from “intrinsic.”

In Sadrinia, 

Cheyenne Witt died of a morphine overdose after her dentist, Jay Sadrinia, prescribed her that medication twice in three days. A jury convicted Sadrinia of knowingly prescribing Witt a controlled substance without a legitimate medical purpose resulting in her death

This occurred in August 2020. Subsequently, “Elexis Widener, Sadrinia’s former assistant,…said that, in December 2020, Sadrinia had used foul language when he fired her and that she had threatened to report him for malpractice. Thereafter, at trial, Widener testified that

Sadrinia used profanity while firing her. Relatedly, the government also introduced a text thread of an exchange in which Sadrinia called Widener “white trash” and told her, “F—k off,” “U go f—k yourself bitch,” and “U are crazy,” among other things. Yet those outbursts had nothing to do with Sadrinia’s treatment of Witt—indeed they came some four months after those events. Widener’s testimony about her firing was not intrinsic; it was patently character evidence admitted in violation of Rule 404(b).

The Sixth Circuit found that the error in admitting this evidence and other character evidence was not harmless and granted Sadrinia a new trial.

-CM