This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was a postmaster. An investigation by United States Postal Inspectors revealed a shortage of 100 coils of 22 cent stamps ($2200) at the post office. D admitted that she had discovered the shortage in late November or early December 1985, but had failed to accurately reflect the shortage on certain postal forms and reports which she was required to fill out in connection with her duties as postmaster. P claimed she was investigating the incident and that she lacked expertise in filling out the postal forms. D was charged with three counts of making false record entries with intent to defraud the United States. D presented a character witness who testified that D had a reputation as 'an honest, trustworthy person.' On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the witness 'Are you aware that Pat Krapp's husband with her knowledge omitted cash income that he had on his -- on their tax returns?' D objected to the question and moved for a mistrial on the basis that the question was improper. The trial court sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the question. D was convicted and on appeal argues that a mistrial should have been granted because the question was asked without good faith and served only to prejudice the jury.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.