Opinion ID: 493334
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: vanden stock testimony

Text: 36 Van Cauwenberghe also argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Roger Vanden Stock regarding communications between defendants and members of the Vanden Stock family and the ultimate transaction between Blair and the Vanden Stocks. This argument is meritless. The specific counts on which Van Cauwenberghe was tried clearly charged that the acts therein were in furtherance of a single scheme to defraud both Biard and the Vanden Stocks. The communications and transaction with the Vanden Stocks constituted an integral part of that scheme. See United States v. Poston, 727 F.2d 734, 740 (8th Cir.) ([C]riminal activity is an integral part of the offense charged if it is 'so blended or connected with the one on trial as that proof of one incidentally involves the other or explains the circumstances thereof....' ) (quoting United States v. Miller, 508 F.2d 444, 448-49 (7th Cir.1974)), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 962, 104 S.Ct. 2179, 80 L.Ed.2d 561 (1984). Roger Vanden Stock's testimony was clearly admissible, therefore, because it was highly probative of the fraudulent scheme alleged in the counts on which Van Cauwenberghe was tried.