context: Again, even if the ruling admitting this evidence was an abuse of discretion, the admission of this evidence under the "co-conspirator hearsay" exception was also harmless.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 343 F.3d 935, 935
citation_a.parenthetical: " 'Even where we find that the district court has abused its discretion with respect to an evidentiary ruling, we will not reverse the conviction if the error was harmless.' "
citation_a.sentence: See Mack, 343 F.3d at 935 (“ ‘Even where we find that the district court has abused its discretion with respect to an evidentiary ruling, we will not reverse the conviction if the error was harmless.’ ”) (quoting Oleson, 310 F.3d at 1091); see also United States v. Womack, 191 F.3d 879, 883 (8th Cir.1999) (admission of evidence pursuant to the “co-conspirator hearsay” exception is reviewed for abuse of discretion). This is so, because, in light of the entire record, Johnson’s substantial rights were unaffected, and the error did not influence or had at most only a slight influence on the verdicts.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 191 F.3d 879, 883
citation_b.parenthetical: admission of evidence pursuant to the "co-conspirator hearsay" exception is reviewed for abuse of discretion
citation_b.sentence: See Mack, 343 F.3d at 935 (“ ‘Even where we find that the district court has abused its discretion with respect to an evidentiary ruling, we will not reverse the conviction if the error was harmless.’ ”) (quoting Oleson, 310 F.3d at 1091); see also United States v. Womack, 191 F.3d 879, 883 (8th Cir.1999) (admission of evidence pursuant to the “co-conspirator hearsay” exception is reviewed for abuse of discretion). This is so, because, in light of the entire record, Johnson’s substantial rights were unaffected, and the error did not influence or had at most only a slight influence on the verdicts.