Classification: Random Forest vs. Decision tree Suppose you are given a dataset with 4 attributes (F1, F2, F3, and F4). The class label is contained in attribute F4. 
Now you build a random forest classification model and you test its performance using 10-fold cross-validation. For building the model you have used all four attributes (F1, F2, F3, and F4). 
The precision and recall of your experiment are both close to 100%. Is there anything that went wrong? Would you obtain similar performance if you used a decision tree instead? 
 A: 
Is there anything that went wrong?

Taking your question literally, yes.  You used feature F4 to predict F4 (or at the very least, something derived from F4).  This is clearly invalid, and the most clear cut possibility of data leakage.

Would you obtain similar performance if you used a decision tree instead?

The problem here is with the human, not the algorithm.  This would be invalid if you used a random forest, tree, gradient booster, regression, svm, neural network, anything.  As long as the algorithm can draw a line of slope one to any given granularity, it will do so, and predict F4 perfectly from itself.
A: Assuming you are not using F4 as both a class and predictor...
Its possible you have very, very strong class separation.  It isn't common, but it can happen, particularly if this strong separation is accompanied by a fairly small dataset.  Assuming you have a binary class variable, try plotting the roc curve for each of your 3 predictor variables.  This should help you determine if one of the predictors is carrying most of the predictive power.
Another thing to keep in mind is that random forests begin to look a lot like single decision trees when the number of predictor variables is small (with only 3 predictors, the mtry parameter can only take on a few values).  So in this case, it is very likely RF and decision trees will perform equivalently, or nearly so.
