Opinion ID: 535165
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Detective Tulloch

Text: 22 Defendant argues that Detective Tulloch's testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Inadmissible hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). Such statements are not admissible, Fed.R.Evid. 802, unless they fit within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. See Fed.R.Evid. 803 and 804. Defendant first asserts that Detective Tulloch should not have been permitted to testify as to the controlled buys at the Kelton house because he did not see the actual money-for-crack transaction between the informant and seller take place. 23 Although Detective Tulloch relied to a great extent on information his informant provided, his testimony related to facts regarding the procedures he observed before and after the controlled buys and, as such, was not hearsay. The trial court did not err in admitting this testimony. 24 Defendant also asserts that Detective Tulloch should not have been allowed to state that the substance handed to him by the informant was what appeared to be a piece of crack cocaine and what was later identified as crack cocaine through our lab. Since defendant made no objection to this testimony at trial, the trial court's ruling may be reversed only if it was plain error. 25 The trial court's ruling admitting the first part of that statement was not plain error since it is not clear from the record that Detective Tulloch, an experienced narcotics officer, testified wholly without firsthand knowledge that the substance appeared to be crack cocaine. The latter portion of the statement, that the contraband was later identified as crack cocaine through our lab, is indeed hearsay. But, considering the record as a whole, including the circumstances in which the crack was purchased, the absence of any objection to the statement, and Detective Tulloch's unchallenged personal opinion that the item appeared to be a piece of crack, we think the trial court's error in admitting the statement was harmless under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). The conviction ought not be reversed on this ground. 26