Opinion ID: 701292
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of a Coconspirator Statement

Text: 15 Over Kearns' objection, the district court admitted a statement in which Jim Kearns allegedly told government informant Sergio Teran that Catherine Kearns was involved in the drug operation. At trial, Teran testified as follows: 16 Q: [by the prosecutor] As [Jim Kearns] was first approaching you, did he tell you anything about his wealth and where his wealth came from? 17 A: Well, he said that when he was out on the street, he was a wealthy man, had money, that he was dealing pretty heavy. 18 Q: Dealing in what? 19 A: Drugs. 20 Q: Did he tell you where he invested his money in the Phoenix area? 21 A: He had cars, boat, houses, properties. 22 Q: When you say houses and properties, did he tell you how he went about investing his money in houses and properties? Who helped him? 23 A: I remember he told me his wife, through his wife. 24 Q: Through his wife, he was able to invest in these properties? 25 A: Yes, sir. 26 We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this hearsay statement under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). See United States v. Peralta, 941 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1991) (admission of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 940, 112 S.Ct. 1484, 117 L.Ed.2d 626 (1992). Under Rule 802(d)(2)(E), the statement is admissible if it was made by a coconspirator of the defendant during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. We find no clear error in the district court's underlying factual determinations that Kearns was connected to an existing conspiracy, and that the statement was made during the course of, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy. See id. (factual findings are reviewed for clear error). 3 1. Connection to an Existing Conspiracy 27 Kearns does not dispute that a conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute it existed. We conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kearns was connected to the conspiracy. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2778-79, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987). Rosemary Teran testified that Kearns was heavily involved in the discussions to arrange drug purchases. Rosemary and Sergio Teran both testified to Kearns' active participation in the actual drug transactions. Officer Pino testified that Lynch told him that the old lady was supposed to have the drug money, and the jury could infer that the old lady meant Lynch's mother, Kearns. 2. In Furtherance of the Conspiracy 28 [T]o be 'in furtherance' the statements must further the common objectives of the conspiracy or set in motion transactions that are an integral part of the conspiracy. Statements made to induce enlistment or further participation in the group's activities are considered to be 'in furtherance' of the conspiracy. United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1535 (9th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 866, 109 S.Ct. 171, 102 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988). 29 Jim Kearns' statement to Teran was made in an attempt to have Teran supply marijuana to Jim Kearns and his partner. The district court concluded that the statement furthered Jim Kearns' attempt to enlist Teran (and thereby furthered the conspiracy) by speaking with respect to the economic foundation for [the Kearnses'] ability to buy marijuana and to traffic in it. This finding is not clearly erroneous. 3. During the Course of the Conspiracy 30 Finally, to be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), there must be  '[s]ufficient evidence ... to support an inference that the statement[ ] [was] made ... while the conspiracy was in existence.'  United States v. Layton, 720 F.2d 548, 555 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. Fielding, 645 F.2d 719, 726 (9th Cir.1981)), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1069, 104 S.Ct. 1423, 79 L.Ed.2d 748 (1984). The district court did not clearly err by finding that the statement was made while the conspiracy was in existence. 31 Statements made by Jim Kearns around the time of the challenged statement clearly suggest that an agreement to distribute marijuana existed before Jim Kearns approached Teran. Other evidence supports this inference as well. Sergio Teran testified that Jim Kearns identified Willis as Kearns' partner from Boston who was looking for a new source of marijuana because his connection couldn't find any; and Rosemary Teran testified that Catherine Kearns explained that she had $50,000 available for the drug purchase but she had sent it back to Boston because the money was just sitting there being wasted and they wanted to put [the money] to work. The real property deeds, discussed below, also provide some indication of a prior relationship between the Kearnses and Hobart Willis, the alleged partner and financier of the drug operation. The jury could infer from the foregoing evidence that the Kearnses' partnership and Boston-based operation existed prior to the time that Jim Kearns approached Sergio Teran.