Opinion ID: 673830
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Joanie Johnson's Statements

Text: 44 Scott contends the district court committed reversible error by allowing Keith Johnson to testify that his wife told him Scott supplied her with cocaine. The district court admitted this testimony conditionally pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The rule states: 45 (d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if-- 46 .... 47 The statement is offered against a party and is ... (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. 48 Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Scott argues that the government failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Joanie Johnson was one of Scott's coconspirators and thus the statement was inadmissible hearsay. 49 To admit Joanie Johnson's statements pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the government must have established by a preponderance of the evidence that Joanie Johnson was a coconspirator. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2778, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987). We hold that the government satisfied this burden. Keith Johnson testified that his wife helped him in, and was equally knowledgeable about, his Omaha business and that she knew and did business with Scott. This testimony alone was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Joanie Johnson was one of Scott's coconspirators. 50