## Facts

- Dennis M. Forcelle co-founded RMS Company and later remained its president after Cretex Companies, Inc. purchased RMS.
- The government charged Forcelle with mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and interstate transportation of monies obtained by fraud (18 U.S.C. § 2314).
- The prosecution alleged Forcelle caused RMS to pay for personal projects using false invoices: a portion of a beach-front house in New Jersey and a drag-racing chassis.
- Ten counts concerned five RMS checks totaling $191,000 used toward construction of the New Jersey home; one count concerned two RMS checks totaling $37,000 used to buy the racing chassis.
- Forcelle admitted arranging deceptive invoices and use of RMS funds but denied criminal intent, asserting he believed the home and racing expenditures would benefit RMS and later be accepted by the parent company.
- Over objection, the district court admitted extensive evidence of alleged uncharged misconduct, including alleged theft of platinum scrap, alleged bribery of a Boeing official, and alleged company-funded improvements to homes.
- The district court admitted the uncharged-misconduct evidence as “res gestae” or “intrinsic” evidence, did not treat it as Rule 404(b) evidence, and did not give a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction.
- A jury convicted Forcelle on one count of mail fraud and six counts of interstate transportation of monies obtained by fraud.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting uncharged-misconduct evidence as “intrinsic/res gestae” rather than analyzing it under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
2. Whether the district court failed to perform adequate Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing given the risk of unfair prejudice from allegations such as theft and bribery.
3. Whether the lack of an adequate limiting instruction on the permitted use of uncharged-misconduct evidence required reversal, particularly where intent was the central disputed element.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by admitting extensive uncharged-misconduct evidence as intrinsic, effectively bypassing Rule 404(b) safeguards.
- The court concluded the admission of the evidence, combined with inadequate jury guidance on its limited use, created unfair prejudice and deprived Forcelle of a fair trial.
- The court determined the error was not harmless because the case turned on intent and the improper evidence risked conviction based on propensity reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of uncharged “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” generally must be evaluated under Rule 404(b) rather than being broadly labeled “intrinsic” or “res gestae.”
- When other-acts evidence is offered to prove a permissible purpose (such as intent or absence of mistake), the court must assess relevance to that purpose and exclude propensity use.
- Even if admissible under Rule 404(b), other-acts evidence remains subject to Rule 403 and may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- In intent-focused fraud prosecutions, extensive uncharged-misconduct evidence poses a heightened risk of improper character inference; limiting instructions are ordinarily required to restrict the jury’s use of such evidence.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court improperly admitted extensive uncharged-misconduct evidence as “intrinsic,” failed to apply Rules 404(b) and 403 with appropriate constraints, and did not adequately instruct the jury to avoid propensity-based reasoning on the contested issue of intent.


United States v. Forcelle, 86 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 1996)