Opinion ID: 663133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: main

Text: 5 Main and Fischl filed motions to suppress the evidence seized at their residences and found in Main's truck. The motions were considered by a United States Magistrate Judge 1 who issued a report and recommendation. After considering objections by the appellants, the district court 2 adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and, as indicated, denied the motions. Main appeals the denial of his motion. We have carefully reviewed this ruling and agree with the result reached by the district court. 6 At trial, the court admitted evidence of Main's prior drug convictions under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), giving the limiting instructions on such evidence required by this court. A trial court has broad discretion in admitting evidence of other crimes. United States v. Longbehn, 898 F.2d 635, 639 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 952, 110 S.Ct. 2217, 109 L.Ed.2d 542 and 498 U.S. 877, 111 S.Ct. 208, 112 L.Ed.2d 168 (1990). We have examined the record on appeal and find no abuse of discretion in this instance. 7 Fischl was called as a witness during an offer of proof made out of the jury's presence and, when questioned by Main's attorney, invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Main then sought to introduce testimony given by Fischl at an earlier detention hearing as hearsay evidence admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1). The district court sustained the government's hearsay objection and ruled that the testimony was inadmissible because it failed to meet one of the exceptions outlined in the rule. We find this ruling to be somewhat problematic but, if error, harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Main's guilt. A ruling by the trial court on the admissibility of hearsay evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Hannah v. City of Overland, 795 F.2d 1385, 1388-89 (8th Cir.1986). And, a court may not admit former testimony absent satisfaction of both elements of Rule 804(b)(1). United States v. Salerno, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2503, 2507, 120 L.Ed.2d 255 (1992). The government contends that it did not have a similar motive to develop Fischl's testimony by cross-examination at the detention hearing as it would have had at trial. The trial court credited this contention. We find no abuse of discretion in this ruling. Furthermore, as indicated, even if this evidence was admissible, the error by the trial judge was harmless. 8 Main also raises other evidentiary issues including a sufficiency of the evidence argument. We find these claims to be without merit.