Opinion ID: 746790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Out-of-Court Statements of Tony Sagoo and His Mother

Text: 48 Lopez contends that the out-of-court statements of Sagoo and his mother were improperly admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. The Government contends that the statements were properly admitted as evidence to rebut Lopez's claim of entrapment, not for their truth, but to explain Storm's conduct with respect to Lopez. 49 In the Government's rebuttal case, informant Storm testified as to his understanding of the source of the debt supposedly owed by Sagoo to Lopez. Over Lopez's numerous objections, Storm testified that Sagoo owed Lopez money from a prior marijuana deal. The district court overruled Lopez's objections and admitted the testimony for nonhearsay purposes. 50 On cross-examination, Storm admitted that he had no personal knowledge of Lopez's involvement in the marijuana deal. In fact, all the information Storm learned concerning Lopez's involvement was from Tony Sagoo. 51 On appeal, the Government contends that Sagoo's and his mother's statements were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted, but rather to show their effect on Storm. Whether or not such testimony was relevant or admissible as nonhearsay, we recognize that the prejudicial aspect of this testimony is clear, even if it might be outweighed by its probative value. The district court erred in not containing the force of this evidence with a limiting instruction. Nevertheless, given the wealth of evidence against Lopez and his obvious experienced behavior in this patently commercial transaction, we conclude that the failure to give such an instruction was harmless.