Opinion ID: 766641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: galloway

Text: 11 Galloway raises three issues on appeal -- (1) that the district court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review a motion to reconsider, (2) that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish Galloway's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) that the district court erred in admitting Exhibit 1.165 under the co-conspirator definition of non-hearsay in Rule 801(d)(2)(e). Because Galloway's argument on point (3) has reversible merit, 5 we set aside the conviction and sentence of Galloway and remand her case for a new trial. 6 1. Sufficiency of the Evidence 12 Galloway contends that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction of conspiracy. In considering such claims, the evidence is reviewed to determine whether a rational trier of fact, after considering all the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict, could have found the defendant guilty beyond areasonable doubt. United States v. Walker, 148 F.3d 518, 523 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Carillo-Morales, 27 F.3d 1054, 1064 (5th Cir. 1994)). Under this standard, it cannot be said that the evidence was insufficient to support Galloway's conviction as a matter of law. As discussed infra, while the evidence presented a close case against Galloway, taking it and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found Galloway guilty of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Galloway's conviction. 2. Co-Conspirator Statements 13 This court reviews admission of hearsay evidence under the non-hearsay definition of Rule 801(d)(2)(e) for abuse of discretion. 7 See United States v. Narviz-Guerra, 148 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 1998). 14 Hearsay is not admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence unless it fits an exception. Fed.R.Evid. 802. However, Rule 801 provides that certain statements which would otherwise constitute excludable hearsay under the general rule of Rule 801(c) are not hearsay by definition. One such definitional non-hearsay is found in Rule 801(d)(2)(e), which provides: 15 A statement is not hearsay if . . . the statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. 16 Under Rule 801(d)(2)(e), the proponent of admittance must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) the existence of the conspiracy (2) the statement was made by a co-conspirator of the party, (3) the statement was made during the course of the conspiracy, and (4) the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1038 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)); United States v. Means, 695 F.2d 811, 818 (5th Cir. 1983). There is no dispute as to the existence of the conspiracy, that the statements made in Exhibit 1.165 were made by a co-conspirator or that they were made during the course of the conspiracy -- the only issue properly before the court is whether the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy. 17 The legal standards that define the in furtherance requirement are well-established. A statement must be in furtherance of the conspiracy in order to fit within the non-hearsay definition of Rule 801(d)(2)(e). However, this Circuit has consistently held that the in furtherance requirement is not to be construed too strictly lest the purpose of the exception be defeated. See United States v. Lechuga, 888 F.2d 1472, 1480 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Ascarrunz, 838 F.2d 759, 763 (5th Cir.1988). This rule is not without its limits, however; a statement is not in furtherance of the conspiracy unless it advances the ultimate objects of the conspiracy. See United States v. Snyder, 930 F.2d 1090, 1095 (5th cir. 1991). Mere idle chatter, even if prejudicial and made among co-conspirators, is not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(e). See Means, 695 F.2d at 818. Thus, while the in furtherance requirement is not a strict one, it is a necessary one, and the proponent of admissibility must satisfy it by a preponderance of the evidence. See Broussard, 80F.3d at 1038; see also United States v. Doerr, 886 F.2d 944, 951 (7th Cir. 1989). 18 Exhibit 1.165 involves a discussion between Boutte and a confidential informant that took place at the bowling alley pro shop. The tape is over 50 minutes long and the conversation recorded covers many topics. A significant portion of the tape involves discussions between the two co-conspirators on such diverse issues as the bowling prowess of certain friends and relatives, the appearance of some of the patrons at the bowling alley, the merits of certain designer outfits and the respective talents of certain exotic dancers. Amid these conversations, however, occurred the following dialogue which, although mostly unintelligible, was offered to connect Galloway to the conspiracy: 19 Boutte: Somebody taking me away from him. 20 Informant: Thought you was supposed to be his ace. 21