Evidence — Other acts

Listen to this article

Evidence — Other acts

In a prosecution for forgery, evidence of a prior conviction for forgery was properly admitted.

“Here, looking at the first element, we are satisfied that Chapman’s 2004 conviction shed light on the questions of intent and lack of mistake. It shows that he knew how to manipulate financial instruments for his personal benefit, and it also undermines his argument that he thought that he was authorized to treat the NAHS accounts as his own.”

“As for the second point, the district court rationally could have concluded that the 2004 conviction was similar enough to charged counts to be relevant. In both cases, Chapman used his business relationship with a client to gain access to his client’s funds. He tampered with proprietary information—business checks, signature stamps, and company accounts—for personal financial gain. The fact that the underlying conduct is nearly identical to only three of the six counts (those dealing with the cashier’s checks) does not render it irrelevant to the remaining counts (those focused on the Fifth Third Bank account). In addition, the conviction was close enough in time to this case to be relevant to the charges. The acts underlying the 2004 conviction and this case are separated by two years, at most.”

Affirmed.

11-2951 U.S. v. Chapman

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kocoras, J., Wood, J.

Full Text