Opinion ID: 1248940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: kleinberg's testimony

Text: The second alleged error raised by Aguilar is the admission of evidence of delivery by him of drugs to Kleinberg on March 25, 2000. Aguilar complains of the following portion of Kleinberg's testimony: Q. You gave the whole half ounce to [Aguilar]?
Q. Did you ask him if he would hook you up with some of that? A. I asked for some. Q. Did he? A. Huh? Q. Did he hook you up with some crank? A. I was given some, yes, for the Q. How much did he give you approximately? A. I really don't know. I can't recall. Q. Did he weigh it out? A. No. Q. Or did he eyeball it? A. It was just grabbed that I saw. Q. Did you have anything to put it in or did you just take it in your hand? A. Cigarette cellophane. Q. Like in a cigarette pack? A. Yes. The trial court, on a motion to reconsider its rulings as to Kleinberg's testimony, stated the following: However, on the motion to reconsider striking the testimony of Bobbie Kleinberg, I too have thought about that since that time, and as I indicated from my statements, that was, while I considered that error, it was harmless error because it could have come in. I guess the fact that it's error means that there should be something done about it. And looking at harmless error is after the fact, you know. Well, what was done at the time and was thatis that a real problem. Well, if it's error, the error should be removed whether it's harmless or otherwise, so I'm going to sustain [Aguilar's] motion to reconsider. And having reconsidered, I'm going to give an instruction to the jury which will direct that they [sic]that the testimony of Bobbie Kleinberg as to [Aguilar's] giving some of the drugs to her after she had given drugs to [Aguilar], that is stricken and the jury will be directed to disregard that part of the testimony. But the prior testimony about the drugs being given by Miss Kleinberg to Mr. Aguilar are still admitted for the limited purpose of showing preparation, plan, identity, and opportunity. The delivery of drugs by Kleinberg to Aguilar is not rule 404 evidence, but is direct evidence that forms the factual setting of the crime charged to show the source of the drugs Aguilar received and then sold to Rodriguez. See, U.S. v. Heidebur, 122 F.3d 577 (8th Cir.1997); U.S. v. Williams, 95 F.3d 723 (8th Cir.1996). As to all other testimony of Kleinberg, it was stricken by the court and the jury was instructed not to consider it. The trial court concluded that the admission of Kleinberg's testimony, other than the testimony of the dealing of drugs by Kleinberg to Aguilar, was error. The trial court then concluded, however, that this error was harmless. The trial court's action in striking the portion of Kleinberg's testimony that the trial court considered the admission of to be error and instructing the jury to disregard such testimony removed any prejudice to Aguilar. When an objection to or motion to strike improper evidence is sustained and the jury is instructed to disregard it, such instruction is deemed sufficient to prevent prejudice. State v. McLemore, 261 Neb. 452, 623 N.W.2d 315 (2001). We conclude, therefore, that this assignment of error is without merit.