Opinion ID: 815103
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: McClatchey’s Testimony

Text: Big Eagle further contends the district court erred in permitting McClatchey to testify regarding Big Eagle’s statement at the meeting between McClatchey and Big Eagle. Big Eagle also challenges the government’s entry into evidence, -10- purportedly contrary to the district court’s ruling, of the circumstances indicating Big Eagle’s statement may have been a threat against McClatchey’s daughter. With respect to Big Eagle’s statement to McClatchey, Big Eagle declined the government’s pretrial offer of a limiting instruction. Therefore, Big Eagle waived his right to challenge the admission of the evidence to the extent any unfair prejudice would have been alleviated by a curative instruction. See United States v. Petrovic, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2012 WL 6197499, at  (8th Cir. Dec. 13, 2012). “[A] cautionary instruction [is] generally sufficient to alleviate prejudice” stemming from improperly admitted evidence. United States v. Diaz-Pellegaud, 666 F.3d 492, 503 (8th Cir. 2012). Where such an instruction is given or waived, we “will affirm a conviction where there was substantial evidence of guilt.” Id. (quoting United States v. Urick, 431 F.3d 300, 304 (8th Cir. 2005)) (internal marks omitted). In Big Eagle’s case, substantial evidence confirms Big Eagle conspired with Raue and others to receive kickbacks from Bauman and Kutz. Big Eagle was not sufficiently prejudiced by McClatchey’s testimony to warrant relief in this case. Big Eagle could have minimized his prejudice by objecting and requesting that the district court strike the allegedly improper testimony and also issue a cautionary instruction. Big Eagle did not move for a mistrial on the basis of this evidence. We prefer not to order a new trial where the defendant failed to raise the issue of a mistrial before the district court. Cf. id. (“We give the district court broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for mistrial because it is in a far better position to weigh the effect of any possible prejudice. Less drastic measures such as a cautionary instruction are generally sufficient to alleviate prejudice.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). Given the substantial evidence of Big Eagle’s guilt, and Big Eagle’s failure to object and his decision to rehash the same testimony on cross-examination, we -11- conclude Big Eagle was not sufficiently prejudiced by the admission of this testimony for us to exercise our discretion to recognize plain error, if any existed.