U.S. v. Chapman

In prosecution on forgery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting defendant's prior forgery conviction where said admission shed light on defendant's intent and lack of mistake with respect to charged offense that concerned defendant's retention and alteration of client's checks that had been earmarked for Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, charged offense and prior forgery conviction were sufficiently similar in that in each case defendant used his business relationship with client to gain access to client's funds.