Opinion ID: 779885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claims of evidentiary error.

Text: 23 At trial, the district court admitted large quantities of drugs that had been seized from Slycord and McAlister. By all accounts, these drugs were not connected to Oleson. Oleson claims that the district court erred in admitting this evidence, and that the error was so grave as to mandate a new trial. We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Gonzales, 90 F.3d 1363, 1370 (8th Cir.1996). Even where we find that the district court has abused its discretion with respect to an evidentiary ruling, we will not reverse the conviction if the error was harmless. United States v. Lupino, 301 F.3d 642, 645 (8th Cir.2002). The test for harmless error is whether the erroneous evidentiary ruling had a substantial influence on the jury's verdict. Id. (quoting Peterson v. City of Plymouth, 60 F.3d 469, 475 (8th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 24 We have serious concerns about the propriety of admitting drugs that, by all accounts, were not connected to the defendant. We note, however, that the jury was well aware that Oleson was not the source for these drugs, because Slycord testified to that effect. Given the strong weight of the other evidence of Oleson's guilt, we find that any error here was harmless, and does not necessitate a new trial. 25