## Facts

- Patricia Krapp, a U.S. Postal Service employee, was prosecuted for making false entries in postal records with intent to mislead, deceive, or defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2073.
- At trial, Krapp offered character evidence through a witness who testified to her honesty.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the character witness whether the witness was aware that Krapp’s husband, “with her knowledge,” omitted cash income from their joint tax returns.
- The district court sustained an immediate defense objection, instructed the jury to disregard the question, and denied Krapp’s motion for a mistrial.
- The jury convicted Krapp, and she appealed, challenging the denial of a mistrial and the refusal to give her requested character-evidence instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after an improper, insinuating question was asked of a character witness, where the objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the question.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that evidence of good character, standing alone, may create a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial because the improper question was unanswered, the objection was sustained, and the jury received a curative instruction presumed effective absent strong showing of incurable prejudice.
- The court held the district court was not required to give the requested “good character alone may create reasonable doubt” instruction where the jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt and told to consider character evidence with all the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Cross-examination of a character witness with “did you know/are you aware” questions about specific acts is permitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(a), but the government should have a good-faith factual basis for the incident referenced; trial courts are encouraged to require a foundational showing outside the jury’s presence.
- Denial of a mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a single improper, unanswered question generally does not warrant reversal when a prompt curative instruction is given, unless the remark is so prejudicial that an admonition cannot remove its effect.
- A district court is not required to give a special instruction that good-character evidence, standing alone, can create reasonable doubt; it is sufficient to instruct on reasonable doubt and permit the jury to weigh character evidence along with all other evidence.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Krapp’s conviction, holding that the trial court’s prompt sustaining of the objection and curative instruction adequately addressed the prosecutor’s improper character-witness question, and that the court did not err in declining to give a standalone instruction elevating good-character evidence as independently sufficient to create reasonable doubt.


United States v. Krapp, 815 F.2d 1183 (8th Cir. 1987)