Opinion ID: 202871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Co-Conspirator Statement Exception

Text: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), [a] statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he 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. Rivera-Hernández claims that the district court should have admitted his statement under the co-conspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule because it was made by Rivera-Hernández's father, an alleged co-conspirator, in furtherance of the conspiracy of preparing false invoices. We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 195 (1st Cir.1999). The alleged statement made by Rivera-Hernández is inadmissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), however, because it was not offered against his position at trial. [5] To the contrary, Rivera-Hernández's explanation for the request for fraudulent invoices was offered as a means to exculpate him. As such, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the co-conspirator statement exception inapplicable to Rivera-Hernández's statement to his father.