United States v. Clark
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2647
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Clark convicted of aggravated identity theft and related offenses in a hub-and-spoke Bank Fraud scheme led by Marcus Benson.
- Evidence showed Clark and co-conspirators used real individuals’ identities to cash fraudulent checks and withdraw funds.
- Benson supplied checks and scheme mechanics; Hansen, Thao, and Clark followed a common pattern targeting D.R.O. as the victim, with limited communication between Clark and others.
- Clark’s prior identity theft conviction was admitted with a limiting instruction to show intent/knowledge, not propensity.
- Clark challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated identity theft and the district court’s admission of prior acts under Rule 404(b).
- District court denied judgment of acquittal on aggravated identity theft and vacated the prior identity theft conviction; Clark was sentenced cumulatively to 48 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated identity theft | Clark contends no proof he knew D.R.O.'s identity. | USA argues Clark knew real identification was used. | Yes; sufficient evidence Clark knew the real identity was used. |
| Judgment of acquittal on aggravated identity theft | Clark argues evidence insufficient as a matter of law. | USA asserts ample evidence of knowledge and use of real identity. | Denied; evidence supported conviction. |
| Admissibility of prior 404(b) identity theft conviction | Clark claims prejudicial character evidence. | USA argues probative of knowledge/intent. | Admissible under Rule 404(b) with limiting instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Green, 151 F.3d 1111 (8th Cir.1998) (standard for Rule 404(b) admissibility factors)
- United States v. Aldridge, 664 F.3d 705 (8th Cir.2011) (timeliness and similarity for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Koski, 424 F.3d 812 (8th Cir.2005) (time-frame and similarity considerations for 404(b))
- United States v. Sparkman, 500 F.3d 678 (8th Cir.2007) (prior acts to show intent when defense raises absence of mistake)
- United States v. Dugan, 150 F.3d 865 (8th Cir.1998) (admissibility of prior acts to prove fraudulent intent)