U.S. v. Marr

In prosecution on wire fraud charge arising out of defendant’s scheme to sell used forklifts that defendant did not have in his possession, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing prosecutor to ask whether defendant’s practice of drafting checks made out to “cash” that had on memo line “cost of goods sold” would qualify as valid business deduction in tax audit, even though defendant argued that said question pertained to improper propensity evidence under Rule 404(b). Said evidence was admissible to prove defendant’s intent to commit wire fraud and was relevant to support govt. claim that defendant used proceeds of said checks to evade $328,881.29 in charge-backs arising out of customers’ requests for refunds for undelivered forklifts. Ct. also found no error in giving instruction that told jury that “intent to defraud” included acts done with intent to deceive customers in order to gain money for defendant or to generate loss to third-party.