Opinion ID: 3002292
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Donald Slack’s Challenged Testimony

Text: Rudy Slack contends the district court erred in denying his motion to strike Donald Slack’s testimony about Donald’s drug dealing with Rudy before September 2004 and after December 2004, maintaining that the testimony involved a different conspiracy than the one charged in the indictment. Slack describes this as “other crimes evidence” which was neither inextricably intertwined with the charged conspiracy nor proper Rule 404(b) evidence. The government responds that Slack did not preserve the issue for appeal. “In order to preserve a ruling on the admission of evidence for appeal, a party must make ‘a timely objection or motion to strike [which] appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.’” United States v. Swan, 486 F.3d 260, 263 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)). If the ruling is not preserved, then we review for plain error. Id. at 264. “Under plain error review, an error must be ‘clear or obvious’ and ‘affect substantial rights’” for reversal of the evidentiary ruling. Id. Slack moved to strike Donald’s testimony except for his testimony that he had nothing to do with Rudy from September 2004 to January 2005. Slack 22 Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 asserted: “There was no testimony by the government that any of the cocaine that Donald Slack was dealing with came from anybody in this conspiracy. His testimony was that he was getting his cocaine from other people.” (Trial Tr. 21, 1516.) It strikes us that Slack’s motion to strike did not preserve the issue for appeal—the grounds he asserts on appeal were neither stated specifically nor apparent from context. Thus, we review for plain error, which means that the error must be “clear or obvious” and “affect substantial rights” for us to reverse the district court’s decision to admit the evidence. Id. But whether the decision to admit Donald’s testimony is reviewed for plain error or under an abuse of discretion standard makes little difference. We disagree with Slack’s characterization of the testimony about his drug dealings with Donald as “other crimes” evidence. The cocaine and crack cocaine conspiracy was alleged to have taken place from the summer of 2002 through August 2005. Donald Slack’s testimony about events prior to September and after December 2004 fit within that time frame. Slack argues that the challenged evidence lacked a connection to the conspiracy because Donald testified that his sources and customers were people not charged in the indictment and there was no evidence that Donald got cocaine from Pittman or the Rollinses. But there was evidence that in 2003, Donald had an accident and was unable to sell cocaine and Pittman fronted him 4 1/2 ounces of cocaine—enough to get him back on his feet in the cocaine business. Pittman just happened to have obtained the cocaine from Rollins Jr. The evidence at trial also supported a finding that Donald made at least two more purchases of powder cocaine from Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 23 Pittman. Furthermore, Eric Spruill testified that he saw Donald and Rudy together on November 1, 2004 cooking powder cocaine into crack cocaine, some of which was then sold to Spruill. Whether to believe Donald’s testimony that he was not involved in any drug dealing with Rudy Slack in September through December 2004 was for the jury to decide. They chose to credit Spruill’s testimony. We find no error in the district court’s decision to admit the challenged testimony of Donald Slack. 3. Taylor’s Testimony Regarding Woolsey’s Statements Rudy Slack argues the district court erred in allowing Alan Taylor to testify that Christy Woolsey told him she got crack cocaine from Slack. He submits that Woolsey’s statements were hearsay and not admissible as co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Under that Rule, statements of a coconspirator made “during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy” are not hearsay and are admissions by a party opponent. United States v. Hargrove, 508 F.3d 445, 449 (7th Cir. 2007). Use of such evidence does not violate the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights. Id.; Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182 (1987). Slack claims that Woolsey was not a member of the conspiracy. The evidence was more than sufficient to establish Woolsey’s membership in the conspiracy, however. The evidence was that Woolsey and Taylor were friends who “got high” together. Woolsey usually supplied the crack that they smoked and she told Taylor that she got it from a guy named Ru-Ru, who Taylor learned used the 24 Nos. 07-2649 & 07-2930 name “Rudy Smith.” At trial Taylor identified Rudy Slack as “Rudy Smith.” Woolsey also obtained crack from Donald Slack. Taylor testified that sometime in 2005 Woolsey introduced him to Rudy Slack and he went to work as a car mechanic for Slack, getting paid in cash and powder cocaine. Taylor also testified that at the end of 2004 or 2005, Woolsey bought crack cocaine from Slack for her and Taylor. Although Taylor testified that he never obtained crack cocaine from Rudy Slack, he did testify that he obtained powder cocaine from him. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Taylor’s testimony about Woolsey’s statements that she got crack cocaine from Slack under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).