Opinion ID: 431004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Extrinsic Evidence on Cross-Examination.

Text: 40 Smith's final contention is that the district judge erred in permitting the introduction of certain extrinsic evidence about similar acts during the government's cross-examination of Smith. He contends that such use of extrinsic evidence was contrary to the limitations set out in Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). 17 Specifically, Smith complains of the introduction of extrinsic evidence by the government during its cross-examination of Smith about (1) his alleged fraud on the Alberta Securities Commission, (2) his alleged fraud on certain Jupiter investors, (3) his alleged fraud on Jupiter, 18 and (4) his alleged misappropriation of stock in connection with a private placement for Consolidated Gold-Sec (Gold-Sec), another Canadian company. 41 As to the first three items, it is sufficient to note that they were introduced pursuant to the district judge's ruling under 404(b). 19 Consequently, it was not improper to prove those similar acts by extrinsic evidence. However, the fourth item, Smith's misappropriation of stock in connection with the Gold-Sec private placement, was admitted solely for Fed.R.Evid. 608(b) purposes. 20 As such, it was an error to permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence in connection therewith. However, it is our view that the error was harmless given the strength of the government's evidence against Smith, and the negligible prejudice, if any, the Gold-Sec evidence might have caused. See United States v. Lyles, 593 F.2d 182, 196 (2d Cir.) (error harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 972, 99 S.Ct. 1537, 59 L.Ed.2d 789 (1979); see also Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1247-48, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) (nonconstitutional error harmless if it did not influence the jury, or had but a very slight effect); United States v. Corey, 566 F.2d 429, 432 (2d Cir.1977) (error is harmless if it is 'highly probable' that the error did not contribute to the verdict). Consequently, this harmless error does not warrant reversal of Smith's conviction.