Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): by Kratzer’s testimony, not wife’s. As such, it is admissible béeause it is the admission of one co-conspirator uttered in the furtherance of a conspiracy. See Commonwealth v. Evans, 489 Pa. 85, 413 A.2d 1025 (1980). If any portion of the transcript should have been redacted to exclude wife’s conversation, such an omission was harmless error, since appellant’s participation in the conspiracy was established beyond a reasonable doubt through the conversations with Kratzer. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 540 Pa. 442, 446-447, 658 A.2d 746, 749 (1995) (stating that error is harmless when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error insignificant so that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict); see also Evans at 92-94, 413 A.2d at 1029 (<HOLDING>). In sum, it was not an abuse of discretion for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (B) holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy (C) holding that admission of evidence of activity not done in furtherance of the conspiracy was harmless error where defendants participation was fully established by the testimony of another coconspirator (D) holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy (E) holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt
Output (English): holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy