United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3659

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Walter Ewing

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: April 8, 2013

Filed: May 29, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

 Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After a bench trial in the District Court, Walter Ewing was convicted of 1

conspiring to provide a prohibited object (tobacco) to an inmate in a prison and

The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.
attempting to obtain a prohibited object (tobacco) while an inmate. The government’s

theory of the case was that Ewing’s coconspirator went to the Federal Correctional

Complex (FCC) in Forrest City, Arkansas, late at night and tossed four “sticks” of

tobacco (bags of loose tobacco wrapped in tape and painted brown) over the

perimeter fences and into the recreation yard of the prison, with the expectation that

Ewing would retrieve them at some later time. Ewing’s sole issue on appeal is a

challenge to a ruling made by the District Court regarding a government witness’s

notes. We affirm.

Lize Wilcox, a forensic chemist with the Arkansas state crime lab, testified that

she performed chemical tests on four samples of a brown leafy substance delivered

to the lab by an investigative specialist with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCC

Forrest City. All four samples tested positive for nicotine. Before cross-examining

her, Ewing’s counsel asked to see the papers that Wilcox had brought with her to the

stand, citing Rule 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Producing a

Witness’s Statement). The District Court denied the request. On appeal, Ewing

contends this was error. He argues that because Wilcox presented the only evidence

that the substance in question wastobacco, the court’s alleged error prejudiced Ewing

“by denying his right to meaningfully confront this crucial witness against him.” Br.

of Appellant at 8.

In his brief on appeal, Ewing concedes that Rule 26.2 was not the correct

authority under which to request access to Wilcox’s notes. Now he says that he was

entitled to see the notes under Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. He further 2

claims that counsel “sufficiently invoked Rule 612” at trial, id. at 9, by saying, “I

don’t have my rule book in front of me, but I think it’s something like if you’re

Generally, Rule 612 provides that “when a witness uses a writing to refresh

2

memory . . . an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing,

to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness about it, and to introduce in evidence any

portion that relates to the witness’s testimony.”

-2-
testifying and you’re basing your testimony on other documents or notes that you

used to refresh your memory, things like that,” Trial Tr. at 29. Citing Rule 103(a) of

the Federal Rules of Evidence, Ewing suggests that based on this comment, the court

should have known counsel intended to cite Rule 612. The confusion was

compounded, however, when cocounsel for Ewing then addressed the court,

specifically identifying Rule 26.2(f) and (g) as support for the request, even reading

portions of the rule to the court:

Your Honor, if I may, I believe it’s 26.2(g), says the scope -- says the

rule applies at trial, so I believe that those statements -- any written

statementsthat a witness makes orsigns or otherwise adopts or approves

or a statement that is substantially verbatim, contemporaneously

recorded recitals of witnesses’ oral statements that is contained in any

recording or any transcription of recording. . . . Your Honor, that is the

definition of statement under Rule 26.2. It’s (f). And then the scope of

the rule is 26.2(g), which states that the rule applies at trial.

Id. After that, the court declared, correctly, that lab notes are not “statements” and

denied counsel’s request.

The government argues that because Ewing’s counsel did not invoke the

correct rule and, in fact, invoked an inapplicable rule, the objection was not properly

preserved. According to the government, we should review the court’s ruling only

for plain error, as Ewing’s objection did not specify the correct basis for a ruling in

his favor. The government may well have a point. See United States v. Lee, 687 F.3d

935, 945 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting that we have held on more than one occasion that

objections to evidentiary rulings must be specific), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1743

(2013); United States v. Worman, 622 F.3d 969, 976 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Because the

argument on appeal differs from the contemporaneous objection, this court reviews

for plain error.”), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 369 (2011). But as we explain below, we

-3-
need not reach the question whether the court was on notice of the correct rule when

it denied access to Wilcox’s notes. 

Assuming without deciding that Ewing adequately preserved his objection to

the District Court’s ruling, we review for an abuse of discretion and will not reverse

if any error was harmless. See United States v. White Bull, 646 F.3d 1082, 1091 (8th

Cir. 2011). Ewing asks usto presume that the papers were lab notes and that Wilcox

3

relied on them while testifying, as evidenced by her detailed testimony regarding the

weight of the contents of each of the four packages. He further asserts, without

citation, that the purpose of Rule 612 “isto allow the opposing party to examine what

else the writing contains—particularly because related matters within the writing

might shed light on the witness’s credibility.” Reply Br. of Appellant at 5. But we

have said that “Rule 612 is not a vehicle for a plenary search for contradictory or

rebutting evidence.” United States v. Sheffield, 55 F.3d 341, 343 (8th Cir. 1995). 

And in this case, probably because Ewing’s request to look at the notes was made

under a rule of criminal procedure that applies to witness statements and not the

appropriate rule of evidence, no record was made of the contents of the notes in

question or whether Wilcox did actually use them to refresh her memory while

testifying. In these circumstances, it is difficult to say whether the court abused its

discretion in denying counsel’s request to look at the notes. But even if the court did

err in denying the request, so long as Ewing’s “substantial rights” were unaffected

and the error had, at most, a minimal effect on the outcome of the proceedings, then

such error is harmless. Worman, 622 F.3d at 976.

Both parties address the court’s decision as an evidentiary ruling, which is 3

ordinarily subject to appellate review for an abuse of discretion and harmless error. 

An alleged erroneous ruling under Rule 26.2 would be reviewed in the same manner. 

See United States v. Shyres, 898 F.2d 647, 656–57 (8th Cir.) (treating a ruling made

by the district court under the Jencks Act, the substance of which is incorporated into

Rule 26.2, as an evidentiary ruling and reviewing for an abuse of discretion), cert.

denied 498 U.S. 821 (1990); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (harmless error).

-4-
We have reviewed the entire transcript of Ewing’s trial, and we conclude that

any error was indeed harmless. Ewing’s defense strategy was to convince the court

that the prosecution misidentified him as the conspirator inside the prison—not that

the prosecution misidentified the brown leafy substance as tobacco. As counsel

argued to the court, “That is our reasonable doubt, your Honor. The government has

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Walter [Ewing].” Trial Tr. at

271. Notwithstanding that Wilcox was the only witness the government called to

identify the brown leafy substance as tobacco, Ewing’s counsel, in cross-examining

Wilcox, asked only about the crime lab’s failure to test the evidence for latent

fingerprints as the FCC investigator had requested. She did not attempt to challenge

Wilcox’s conclusions that the brown leafy substance contained nicotine or her

opinion that it wastobacco. In his cross-examination of Wilcox, counsel for Ewing’s

codefendant did confirm with Wilcox that the chemical test she performed was for

nicotine, not for tobacco, and that she did not have personal knowledge of “all

substances in the world that contain nicotine.” Id. at 32. He left it at that, and on

redirect Wilcox affirmed that based on the nicotine test and her experience in testing

brown leafy substancesfor controlled and uncontrolled substances, she believed that

the substance in question was tobacco. Recalling that this was a bench trial, we

cannot say that the court’s decision regarding the expert’s notes had even a minimal

effect on its factual finding that the brown leafy substance wastobacco or its ultimate

finding of guilt. Any error was therefore harmless, and reversal of Ewing’s

conviction on that ground is unwarranted.

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

______________________________

-5-