## Facts

- Ronald F. Calvert was prosecuted for a scheme that used the mails and interstate wires to obtain and maintain large life and accidental-death insurance coverage on a business associate, followed by efforts to collect insurance proceeds after the associate’s death.
- In spring 1972, Calvert approached Charles Hintz and proposed that Hintz act as a “front man” so Calvert would not appear directly as a beneficiary in partnerships formed with potential “inventor” or “idea” partners.
- Calvert told Hintz the plan was to enter a partnership with a businessman, obtain “key man” and accidental-death insurance on that person, and then cause the person’s death to collect and share the proceeds.
- Calvert and Hintz met with potential targets, with Calvert focusing on the person’s health and insurability rather than on business value.
- After Hintz withdrew, Calvert’s father, James Calvert, entered a partnership (May 24, 1972) with Victor Null, an inventor seeking financial backing to develop a rotary engine; under the agreement, James Calvert would provide funds and Null would develop the engine.
- Over the following months, substantial insurance was obtained on Null’s life (in excess of $2 million total coverage). James Calvert was named beneficiary on certain accidental-death policies, and premiums were funded from Ronald Calvert’s money through indirect means.
- A separate large policy was owned by the partnership, with the partnership designated as beneficiary.
- Null later died in an विमान accident during a flight in which Ronald Calvert was the pilot; the government treated the death as part of the overall plan to trigger insurance payments.
- At trial, over Calvert’s objection, the government introduced evidence that Calvert had previously received payments under insurance policies in similar circumstances, to show plan and intent rather than character.
- The jury convicted Calvert on multiple counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and the district court imposed an aggregate sentence totaling 45 years.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence of Calvert’s prior insurance collections under similar circumstances as “other acts” evidence to prove plan, intent, or absence of mistake.
2. Whether, even if admissible for a non-propensity purpose, the prior-acts evidence should have been excluded because its unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Calvert’s convictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy.
4. Whether Calvert was entitled to reversal based on additional trial and post-trial claims (including challenges tied to charging/waiver arguments and sentencing procedures).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed Calvert’s convictions and left the aggregate 45-year sentence in place.
- The court held that evidence of prior insurance recoveries in similar circumstances was admissible as proof of plan, intent, and absence of mistake, rather than as proof of bad character or propensity.
- The court further held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the probative value of the other-acts evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, the court concluded a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Calvert knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud and knowingly caused use of the mails and wires in furtherance of that scheme.
- The court rejected Calvert’s remaining claims of reversible error and found no basis to disturb the judgment or sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted for non-propensity purposes such as proving plan, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake; it is not admissible solely to show a defendant’s character and that he acted in conformity with it. (FRE 404(b) concept.)
- Even when other-acts evidence is relevant for a proper purpose, the trial court must assess whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; appellate review of this balancing is deferential. (FRE 403 concept.)
- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court views the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Mail and wire fraud require proof of a scheme to defraud and use (or causation of use) of the mails or interstate wires for the purpose of executing the scheme.
- Appellate courts generally will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits absent a clear showing of error in the sentencing process or an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

United States v. Calvert affirmed Ronald Calvert’s mail-fraud, wire-fraud, and conspiracy convictions arising from an insurance-based scheme tied to the death of a business associate after large policies were obtained, holding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of similar prior insurance collections to prove plan and intent (not propensity), that the Rule 403 prejudice argument did not show an abuse of discretion, and that the record—viewed favorably to the verdict—supported the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


United States v. Calvert, 523 F.2d 895 (1975)