U.S. v. Belle, 74-1988

• Decision Date: 09 May 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-1988,74-1988
• Citation: 516 F.2d 578
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raymond Leon BELLE, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 578

516 F.2d 578

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raymond Leon BELLE, Appellant.

No. 74-1988.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 15, 1975.

Decided May 9, 1975.

Samuel A. Goldblatt, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Richard C. Coughlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge, and ROSS and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.

MATTHES, Senior Circuit Judge.

This criminal prosecution is based upon a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, which makes it an offense to unlawfully and fraudulently transport in interstate commerce a falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited security.

Raymond Leon Belle was found guilty on the fourth count of a four-count indictment. That count charged that on or about September 6, 1973, Belle did unlawfully, wilfully and intentionally cause to be transported in interstate commerce a falsely made, forged, and counterfeited check in the amount of $376.55, in violation of the above mentioned statute. ¹

Belle has appealed from the judgment of conviction. ² He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant submission of the case to the jury. A review of the pertinent facts is in order, however, because of a claim of error advanced by appellant relating to the admission of certain evidence.

In the spring of 1973, a number of blank checks of the Blackburn Construction Company of East St. Louis, Illinois, were stolen from the firm which was in charge of handling the payroll of Blackburn. The checks were numbered and imprinted with the name of the maker, "Blackburn Construction Company . . . East St. Louis, Illinois," and with the name of the payor bank, "Southern Illinois National Bank of East St. Louis."

On September 4, 1973, three of the stolen checks numbered 268, 269, and 270, each drawn on the account of Blackburn Construction Company in the amount of $376.55, were presented to and cashed by the Gateway National Bank in St. Louis, Missouri. Each check was payable to the order of "Jimmie Johnson" (the payee's name was typed), and were purportedly signed by one Robert L. Mitchum, a contractor who shared offices with one of the officers of Blackburn. Mitchum was not authorized by the Blackburn company to sign checks for it and his signature on the three checks had been forged. All three checks were endorsed "Jimmie Johnson" and bore an account number of Gateway National Bank, 608462.

The evidence shows that a person by the name of Jimmie Johnson did have an account at the Gateway National Bank. He was produced as a witness by the Government and testified unequivocally that he did not endorse the checks numbered 268, 269 and 270, or check number 263, hereinafter discussed. Johnson also testified that he lost his wallet some time during the year of 1973. Apparently the number of his bank account was in the wallet.

Henrietta Simpson was another intended victim of the check forgery scheme. Mrs. Simpson conducted her banking business with a bank in Arnold, Missouri. Her purse, containing a number of blank checks, was stolen prior to September of 1973. Mrs. Simpson's name and address and a check number were imprinted on each of the stolen checks.

This brings us to check 263, the subject of Count 4 of the indictment. It, too, was made payable to the order of Jimmie Johnson in the amount of $376.55, was purportedly signed by Robert L. Mitchum, and was endorsed "Jimmie Johnson 608462." On September 6, 1973, this check 263 was presented by appellant to the Gateway Bank, along with a check numbered 218 drawn on the account of Henrietta Simpson and carrying the purported signature of Mrs. Simpson. The Simpson check 218 was payable in the amount of $180.00 to "J. Johnson" and carried the same endorsement as check 263, "Jimmie Johnson 608462."

On the same day, September 6, appellant tendered two additional checks together to Gateway. One was Blackburn check 262, made payable and endorsed in precisely the same manner as Blackburn check 263. The other check was Simpson check 219, payable to "J. Johnson" and carrying the same forged endorsement of Jimmie Johnson and the Gateway account number. Mrs. Simpson, a witness for the Government, testified that she had not issued either check 218 or 219 and that her signature on each had been forged.

Some of the bank tellers became suspicious of the appellant during the course of his visits to the bank on September 6 with the various checks above mentioned. They reported their suspicions to one of the officers of the bank, who in turn contacted the F.B.I. This agency conducted an extensive investigation, which eventually led to the arrest of appellant, the filing of the indictment, and his conviction.

Appellant was identified by a number of the bank employees during the course of the trial as the man who had presented and cashed Blackburn check 263 and the Simpson checks. In addition, fingerprints of the appellant were found on both of the Simpson checks and a palm print of the appellant was found on the back of the Blackburn check 263.

Appellant contends that inasmuch as the Simpson checks were not the subject of the indictment and did not travel in interstate commerce, prejudicial error resulted from their admission into evidence. ³ Although we have some difficulty in understanding the exact premise for appellant's claim of error, we conclude on the basis of the cases he cites that he bottoms his contention on the proposition that evidence of other criminal conduct is ordinarily not admissible and that consequently the Simpson checks should have been excluded in this case.

The law in this area is clear and was recognized by this court as late as last November in United States v. Gocke, 507 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1974). There we reaffirmed that admission at trial of evidence of other criminal conduct is generally improper. We recognized, however, that there are exceptions to the rule:

Although this evidence is generally inadmissible since it suggests that the defendant has a...