United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2492

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

N.B.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Western

 ____________

Submitted: May 10, 2023

Filed: August 1, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1 adjudicated N.B. as a juvenile delinquent for destruction of

government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 5032, after finding that

1The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.
he had damaged two Powder House buildings, historic properties managed by the

Bureau of Land Management (Bureau) in the Black Hills. At trial, Bureau Ranger

Charles Huston testified that while executing a search warrant for an outbuilding at

N.B.’s residence, he discovered two lanterns that had been reported as stolen property

in a separate incident.2

 N.B. challenges the admission of this testimony, as well as

the sufficiency of the evidence to support the adjudication. We affirm.

Any error in admitting Huston’s testimony was harmless because it did not

influence the district court’s adjudication and thus did not affect N.B.’s substantial

rights. See United States v. Red Legs, 28 F.4th 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2022) (“An

evidentiary error is harmless when, after reviewing the entire record, we determine

that the substantial rights of the defendant were unaffected, and that the error did not

influence or had only a slight influence on the verdict.” (quoting United States v.

Farish, 535 F.3d 815, 820 (8th Cir. 2008))). The district court made no mention of

the lanterns in its findings of fact or conclusions of law. D. Ct. Order of Feb. 16,

2022.

Moreover, we reject N.B.’s contention that without Huston’s lantern testimony,

the evidence was insufficient to support his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent. See

United States v. J.H.H., 22 F.3d 821, 829 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that in bench trial,

the improper admission of evidence is harmless if the record contains sufficient

admissible evidence to establish guilt). At trial, two former classmates testified that

N.B. had said that he damaged the Powder House buildings with a sledgehammer. 

A third classmate testified that he was with N.B. at the time of the damage and

described the sledgehammer, as well as some of the damage. Ranger Huston testified

that he had found a sledgehammer at N.B.’s residence. The government entered into

evidence a photo of the sledgehammer, which matched the description provided by

the third classmate. N.B. attacks his former classmates’ credibility and argues that

2Charges against N.B. related to this second incident were dismissed. 

-2-
the physical evidence is inconclusive. We must, however, view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the adjudication and accept all reasonable inferences

supporting it. See United States v. L.B.G., 131 F.3d 1276, 1277 (8th Cir. 1997). 

When so viewed, the evidence set forth above supports the adjudication.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-