Opinion ID: 692024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount of Depredation

Text: 14 Counts and Wilcox argue that the district court erred in overruling their objection to Jody Eberly's testimony concerning the amount of depredation. They contend that her testimony regarding the value of white oak acorns was based on inadmissible hearsay. The government argues that her testimony was admissible as hearsay reasonably relied on by experts in a particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject under Fed.R.Evid. 703. 3 15 If there was any error, and we do not think there was, we believe it would be harmless. Evidentiary rule violations which do not affect a defendant's constitutional rights are subject to Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) 4 harmless error analysis as opposed to the stricter harmless error analysis found in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). United States v. DeAngelo, 13 F.3d 1228, 1233 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2717, 129 L.Ed.2d 842 (1994). Neither Counts nor Wilcox claim any constitutional violation. Under our interpretation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a), [a]n error is harmless if the reviewing court, after reviewing the entire record, determines that no substantial rights of the defendant were affected, and that the error did not influence or had only a very slight influence on the verdict. United States v. Flenoid, 949 F.2d 970, 973 (8th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted). We will reverse the conviction only if the jury may have been substantially swayed by improperly-admitted evidence.... DeAngelo, 13 F.3d at 1233 (quotations omitted). 16 Counts and Wilcox argue that the alleged error affected their substantial rights because the challenged testimony was necessary to establish the amount of depredation, an essential element of the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1361 charge. We disagree. The record is replete with other evidence that would allow the jury to conclude that the amount of depredation exceeded $100.00. Business records from the Independent Stave Mill conclusively establish the value of the felled trees in excess of $2,000.00, well above the statutory requirement. This court may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record, Dicken v. Ashcroft, 972 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir.1992), and we do so now. Accordingly, we conclude that any error, if there was in fact error, was harmless.