Opinion ID: 222134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Sergeant Aukes's Testimony

Text: Lowen also argues that the district court abused its discretion by improperly applying Fed.R.Evid. 701 [4] when it allowed Sergeant Cory Aukesa witness called by Lowento testify, on cross-examination by the Government, that he believed Lowen absolutely looks like the person on the videotape. Sergeant Aukes's only previous encounter with Lowen was a brief one, while Lowen was in custody awaiting trial. Lowen suggests that the district court abused its broad discretion because Sergeant Aukes had no greater familiarity with Lowen than the jury and had no dealings with the defendant prior to his arrest. See United States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 700 n. 4 (8th Cir. 2002) (An identification witness's testimony must be rationally based on the perception of the witness, and is admissible if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). Assuming, without deciding, that it was error to admit Aukes's testimony, we conclude that the error was harmless. An error is harmless if we conclude 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. Tenerelli, 614 F.3d 764, 771 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Eagle, 498 F.3d 885, 888 (8th Cir.2007)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1589, 179 L.Ed.2d 488 (2011). An error in admitting testimony may be harmless if the testimony is corroborated by independent sources, or if it amounts to cumulative evidence on matters already before the jury. United States v. Melecio-Rodriguez, 231 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam). In this case, as we have discussed, the Government presented ample identification evidence from independent sources, including the testimony of Eischens, who knew Lowen for fifteen years and saw Lowen two weeks before the robbery, as well as the items of clothing discovered at Lowen's residence that matched the clothing worn by the robber. Thus, we conclude that Sergeant Aukes's additional identification was cumulative and had no more than a slight influence on the verdict. Accordingly, any error in admitting Aukes's testimony was harmless.