Opinion ID: 657113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Hearsay Statements of the Coconspirator

Text: 15 The defendant next objects to the district court's decision to admit into evidence a notebook found in Marla Hunter's apartment that contained references to Mouse and Mousey, nicknames of the defendant. She claims that the court admitted the documents under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule without making the requisite findings concerning the existence of a conspiracy. 4 16 We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Zimmerman, 943 F.2d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir.1991). We review evidentiary rulings by considering the record as a whole. Boren v. Sable, 887 F.2d 1032, 1034 (10th Cir.1989). 17 We find that the defendant failed to properly object to the admission of the documents and accordingly we review the district court's decision to admit the evidence for plain error. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1), (d); McIntyre, 1993 U.S.App. LEXIS at  12; United States v. Nall, 949 F.2d 301, 309 (10th Cir.1991). 5 Plain errors must be both obvious and substantial. Nall, 949 F.2d at 309. 18 The documents were admitted as circumstantial evidence that ... a person named 'Mousey' was having some dealings with Marla Hunter. As such, the proof depended not on the truth of the matter asserted on the face of the document, but only on the circumstance that the document containing the name Mousey was found in Hunter's apartment. The document was introduced because of its existence and where it was found. See McIntyre, 1993 U.S.App. LEXIS at  19. Consequently, we conclude that the documents were not hearsay as defined by Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). Even if these documents were regarded as hearsay documents, their introduction was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt in this case. Thus, we find that the district court's admission of the evidence did not amount to reversible error. 19