United States v. Calvert, 523 F.2d 895

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit

1975

Chapter

9

Title

A Return to Relevance II:  Character and Habit

Page

378

Topic

The General Rule Excluding Character Evidence

Quick Notes

Calvert was engaged in a scheme where he obtained key man [business] and accidental death insurance on a business partner and then caused the business partner's death for the purpose of obtaining the proceeds. Subsequently, defendant was convicted of mail fraud, fraud by wire, and conspiring to commit mail fraud.

At Trial

o         Government introduced evidence that the Df had previously collected on two other insurance policies under similar circumstances.

o         Court said this evidence was admissible.

Rule

o         Other act evidence is ONLY admissible if the trial court determines that the jury could reasonably find that the actor committed the act by a preponderance of the evidence.

Judge must determine that

(1)   The evidence is relevant for a purpose other than showing the character or disposition of the defendant,

(2)   The proof that the acts were committed by the defendant is "clear and convincing," and

(3)   The probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of prejudice to the defendant.

Note

o         If the evidence is admitted, the court should give a limiting instruction, informing the jury of the narrow purpose for which it has been admitted.

Three dangers in the presentation of "other crimes" evidence

(1)   First, it is feared that a jury might overestimate the probative value of such evidence by assuming that merely because the defendant has committed crimes before, he is likely to be guilty of the offense charged.

(2)   Second, is the recognized tendency of men to punish a bad man now that he has been caught, even though his guilt on this occasion has not been satisfactorily established.

(3)   Finally, it is felt that it is unfair to require a defendant to defend against and disprove crimes for which he has never been charged or indicted.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether it is admissible to show that the defendant had previously collected on two other insurance policies under similar circumstances?  Yes

Procedure

Trial

o         United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, defendant was convicted of seven counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1341, four counts of fraud by wire, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1343, and one count of conspiring to commit mail fraud, 18 U.S.C.S. § 371. As a result, defendant received a sentence of 45 years imprisonment.

Appellant

o         The court affirmed the conviction, as well as the sentence imposed by the trial court

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl - United States

Df - Calvert

Description

o         Calvert was engaged in a scheme where he obtained key man [business] and accidental death insurance on a business partner and then caused the business partner's death for the purpose of obtaining the proceeds.

o         Subsequently, defendant was convicted of mail fraud, fraud by wire, and conspiring to commit mail fraud.

o          

At Trial

o         Government introduced evidence that the Df had previously collected on two other insurance policies under similar circumstances.

o         Court said this evidence was admissible.

Admissibility of other crimes evidence

o         Abuse of discretion of the trial judge.

Judge must determine that

(1)   The evidence is relevant for a purpose other than showing the character or disposition of the defendant,

(2)   The proof that the acts were committed by the defendant is "clear and convincing," and

(3)   The probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of prejudice to the defendant.

Note

o         If the evidence is admitted, the court should give a limiting instruction, informing the jury of the narrow purpose for which it has been admitted.

Three dangers in the presentation of "other crimes" evidence

(4)   First, it is feared that a jury might overestimate the probative value of such evidence by assuming that merely because the defendant has committed crimes before, he is likely to be guilty of the offense charged.

(5)   Second, is the recognized tendency of men to punish a bad man now that he has been caught, even though his guilt on this occasion has not been satisfactorily established.

(6)   Finally, it is felt that it is unfair to require a defendant to defend against and disprove crimes for which he has never been charged or indicted.

Rules

Class Notes