Opinion ID: 166828
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Colorado Statute

Text: 14 Mr. Herron argues that the text of § 18-12-108 included on the second page of the parole agreement was irrelevant and potentially confusing. We need not resolve whether this portion of the agreement was relevant to Mr. Herron's innocent-possession defense, because any error in its inclusion in the redacted agreement was harmless. Even if a court has admitted inadmissible evidence ... a conviction will not be disturbed on appeal if that error is harmless. United States v. Griffin, 389 F.3d 1100, 1104 (10th Cir.2004). Such an error is harmless if it did not have a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial or leaves one in grave doubt as to whether it had such effect. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Herron does not complain about any specific language of the statute. And the substance of the statute—that Colorado law forbids convicted felons to possess firearms—was repeatedly presented to the jury on other occasions without objection. We simply fail to see how a defendant being tried on a federal charge of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm suffers unfair prejudice from evidence that such possession also violates state law. Mr. Herron argues that reference to the state statute improperly showed that he was guilty of other misconduct. Aplt. Br. at 7. But, of course, there was no other misconduct—the same act simply violated two virtually identical statutes. 15