## Facts

- The IRS mailed a $2,006.20 tax refund check payable to Francisca and Domingo Franco; the Francos never received it.
- Michael W. Beauchamp opened a Fleet Bank checking account and, two days later, deposited the refund check into that account.
- The check bore forged endorsements of the payees’ names; below them were Beauchamp’s signature and address.
- The account had no other deposits, was quickly depleted to a zero balance, and was later closed.
- When investigated, Beauchamp admitted signing the check but claimed a purported payee (a Hispanic man) gave him the check as partial payment for a car, allegedly introduced by Joseph Massey.
- Massey initially gave a written statement corroborating Beauchamp’s story, then later recanted and admitted the statement was false.
- At trial, Massey testified that Beauchamp asked him to give the false story to police and that Massey complied because he felt threatened; Massey also admitted prior convictions.
- Beauchamp sought to call a landlady to testify that Massey did not live at the address Massey gave on the stand; the district court excluded the testimony as extrinsic impeachment on a collateral matter.
- A jury convicted Beauchamp of uttering and publishing a forged U.S. Treasury check and aiding and abetting.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a “more than minimal planning” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding extrinsic evidence offered to contradict a government witness on an allegedly collateral fact (the witness’s residence).
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding “more than minimal planning” under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(2)(A).

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the landlady’s testimony as collateral impeachment barred by limits on extrinsic contradiction and supported by Rule 403 concerns.
- The court held the “more than minimal planning” enhancement was not clearly erroneous given the steps taken to execute and conceal the fraud.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to exclude impeachment by extrinsic evidence when the contradiction concerns a collateral matter and the probative value is substantially outweighed by risks of delay, distraction, or confusion under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
- A witness’s general credibility may be important without making every specific point offered for contradiction material; extrinsic proof aimed only at showing the witness lied about a tangential fact may be excluded.
- A fraud offense involves “more than minimal planning” when the defendant takes steps beyond a simple, opportunistic act, including preparations tailored to consummate the fraud and efforts to conceal it (such as arranging corroborating false statements).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed because the excluded impeachment evidence targeted a collateral detail and would have produced undue diversion, and because the record supported that Beauchamp executed and attempted to conceal the check fraud through deliberate preparatory steps and a coordinated false narrative.


United States v. Beauchamp, 986 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993)