Opinion ID: 2973950
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sign

Text: Finally, Ray argues that the admission of testimony about a sign in his apartment that read “cash, grass, or ass” violated Rule 404(b). Certainly, the sign itself does not prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident as it relates to § 2251(a) or § 2252(a)(4)(B). Not only is testimony regarding the sign irrelevant, but it is precisely the kind of evidence that is prohibited by Rule 404(a); evidence of Ray’s character. In order for us to reverse Ray’s convictions, however, the error must be more than harmless. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). For purposes of this criminal appeal, “[a]n error is harmless when it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” United States v. Baldwin, 418 F.3d 575, 582 (6th Cir. 2005); - 12 - No. 05-5641 United States v. Ray see also Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 52(a) (“Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”). The presence of overwhelming evidence of guilt can render the erroneous admission of other evidence harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., United States v. Pugh, 405 F.3d 390, 404 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that the erroneous admission of an out-of-court statement was harmless where there was “overwhelming evidence” that the defendant possessed a gun when he was arrested). Here, there was overwhelming evidence that Ray induced minors into engaging in sexually explicit conduct, that he took photographs of the minors in question, and that he transported those photographs across state lines via e-mail. Furthermore, numerous witnesses testified that they informed Ray that they were under-age. Given the abundance of evidence, the district court’s error in admitting testimony regarding the sign is harmless.