United States v. Lamar Chapman, III
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18379
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Chapman was convicted by jury on six counts of forging checks under 18 U.S.C. § 513(a).
- He worked for NAHS to resolve an IRS dispute and obtained cashier’s checks payable to the IRS; he kept three for himself and altered payees to his name.
- He held a limited power of attorney for NAHS and related entities, opened bank accounts, and attempted to reinstate authority using a signature stamp without authorization.
- In 2007, checks drawn on NAHS accounts were payable to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court with memos referencing Chapman, signed with Gray’s stamp without authorization.
- The government introduced Chapman’s 2004 forgery conviction under Rule 404(b); the district court admitted it to show intent, with a limiting jury instruction.
- Chapman previously pled guilty in 2004 to forging an IRS check by adding his name to the payee line and cashing it; this was used to support intent in the current case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | Chapman challenges lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Chapman claims no improper intent or deception proven | Evidence supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Interstate commerce element | Prove NAHS entities affected interstate commerce | No substantial interstate activity shown | Evidence showed de minimis interstate effect; element satisfied |
| Admissibility of 2004 conviction under Rule 404(b) | Evidence should be admissible to show intent | Evidence is improper propensity evidence | District court did not abuse discretion; 404(b) admissible for intent and plan |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review on appellate review)
- United States v. Reese, 666 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion review for Rule 404(b) rulings)
- United States v. Vargas, 552 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2008) (four-point test for admitting 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Green, 258 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2001) (balancing probative value vs. unfair prejudice in 404(b))
- United States v. Conner, 583 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 2009) (propensity concerns and admissibility under 404(b))
- United States v. Lee, 439 F.3d 381 (7th Cir. 2006) (interstate commerce element in forgery)