Opinion ID: 1291973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Murder Evidence

Text: We review for abuse of discretion the district court's evidentiary rulings. United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d 722, 730 (8th Cir.1997). In a conspiracy trial, the district court's discretion in evidentiary rulings is particularly broad. Id. In Dierling, we held evidence of a murder in a drug conspiracy case was relevant and not overly prejudicial when the slaying was an act to control subordinates and the evidence showed the lengths the conspirators would go to protect the conspiracy. Id. at 731. Similarly, Colon's murder was an act to control subordinates. La Oficina did not believe Osma's story regarding the robbery and intended to hold someone responsible for the missing $240,000. Colon's murder was committed by members of the conspiracy to further the conspiracy by demonstrating the lengths to which the conspirators would go to protect their drug dealing interests. The murder also was an attempt by the conspiracy to collect the conspiracy's stolen money. We further note the overt act of one conspirator in a conspiracy is attributable to all conspirators. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). As Montano claims, the murder evidence probably is highly prejudicial, but the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence.