Opinion ID: 2675586
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assault of Co-Conspirator Pearson

Text: Marfo also contends that the district court erred by admitting the testimony of Pearson, in which Pearson described being assaulted and threatened by Marfo in the presence of Davis after Marfo discovered that Pearson had withdrawn money from one of the fraudulent bank accounts. As described by Pearson, the assault occurred after the July 29, 2011 trip to New Jersey, and was Pearson’s last contact with Marfo. Davis corroborated Pearson’s account, stating, “We [Marfo and I] confronted him [Pearson] about the money that was missing out of the account. Frank [Marfo] beat him up a little bit.” (J.A. 90.) Marfo asserts that admitting testimony concerning the assault amounts to plain error because the evidence was admitted 24 solely for the purpose of showing that Marfo was a violent person. As with Pearson’s trip to New Jersey, however, we find that the evidence of Marfo’s assault was intrinsic to the charged crimes. The assault – which was committed in retaliation for Pearson’s theft of money from a fraudulent account into which Marfo’s stolen money orders were deposited – was an act in furtherance of the ongoing bank fraud conspiracy. It was thus intertwined with the conspiracy to murder Callaway, the sole purpose of which was to ensure the survival of the bank fraud scheme. Because describing the assault was necessary to tell the complete story of Marfo’s participation in the charged conspiracies, see Basham, 561 F.3d at 327, the district court did not err in admitting Pearson’s testimony.