Opinion ID: 200903
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Marijuana Sales

Text: 25 John Elliot, one of the bud pickers, testified that he had known Balthazard since the late 1980s and had worked for the conspirators from 1990 until the summer of 2000. Over Balthazard's objection, Elliot answered yes to the prosecutor's question [h]ave you ever received marijuana from Mr. Balthazard? Balthazard argues that the court should have sustained his objection because the prosecutor failed to establish that Elliot had received the marijuana from Balthazard while the conspiracy was in existence. 26 While it is true that the jury could not determine from the prosecutor's question and Elliot's answer precisely when Elliot received marijuana from Balthazard, Elliot's testimony nevertheless was admissible as evidence of the `background, formation, and development of the illegal relationship' between them even if Elliot was not a member of the conspiracy when he received the marijuana. United States v. Scott, 270 F.3d 30, 47 (1st Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 118 (1st Cir.2000)). The court's ruling on the issue thus was correct. 27