Evidence – Other acts – harmless error

Listen to this article

Evidence
Other acts; harmless error

Even if it was error to admit evidence of marijuana dealing in a trial for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, the error was harmless, where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

“Whether Stevenson preserved the issue and whether the government’s violation of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)’s notice requirement should excuse an insufficient objection to the marijuana evidence, however, is irrelevant because any error was harmless.3 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a); United States v. Ortiz, 474 F.3d 976, 982 (7th Cir. 2007) (‘Errors do not merit reversal when the government proves that they are harmless, that is, that they did not affect the outcome of the trial.’). The evidence against Stevenson was overwhelming. Stevenson’s supplier, Friends, testified at trial that he supplied Stevenson with huge quantities of cocaine over the years. Several couriers and trail-car drivers also testified, not just about their roles, but also about events they witnessed—Stevenson secreting the money and drugs in the speaker boxes; his cooking of the cocaine into crack; and his weighing, packaging, and selling large quantities of crack and cocaine out of his mother’s house. Additionally, three of Stevenson’s regular purchasers, to whom Stevenson fronted the drugs, also testified. Testimony from government agents concerning Stevenson’s behavior also bolsters the testimony of the co-conspirators. Specifically, Stevenson led officers on a high-speed chase the evening of the attempted sting operation. After eluding officers, he then taunted them, leaving messages evidencing an awareness of guilt, i.e., it’s my job to run and your job to catch me. Stevenson also changed his voicemail message to inform his friends and family members that there was a ‘snitch’ and that they should dump their cell phones and trust no one. For his part, Stevenson called no witnesses and presented no evidence.”

Affirmed.

09-3209 U.S. v. Stevenson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Stiehl, J., Manion, J.

Full Text