Opinion ID: 15353
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agents Hildreth and Boyette

Text: 1 We do not address this objection because the testimony is admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule. 2 We point out that for the co-conspirator exception to apply, “same conspiracy” does not have to be the same conspiracy as charged n the indictment. United States v. Arce, 997 F.2d 1123, 1128 (5th Cir. 1993). 10 DEA Agent Hildreth testified that he got a break in his investigation when Tony Hall, who was then an informant, received a call from Perez’s wife asking for help. Narviz argues that the co-conspirator exception does not apply because neither Perez’s wife nor Hall were co-conspirators. Hall, at the time Perez’s wife telephoned, was a cooperating witness, and Perez’s wife was never shown to be a member of the conspiracy. We agree with the government that the testimony is not hearsay. A statement is hearsay only if it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter. FED. R. EVID. 801(c). Here, Agent Hildreth’s testimony was not given to show the truth of what Perez’s wife said; rather, the purpose of the testimony was to show why Hildreth resumed his investigation. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Hildreth to testify. Finally, Narviz objects to two allegedly hearsay statements Agent Boyette made. Boyette testified that he told Grant that Customs, during a three year investigation, had received information that Narviz was involved in narcotics smuggling. Boyette also testified that after arresting and debriefing four people, investigators were led to Narviz’s ranch. Again, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony. The arrest and debriefing statement, like Hildreth’s testimony, is not hearsay because it is not offered to prove the truth of the arrests and debriefings. Instead, the testimony is used to explain why investigators went to Narviz’s 11 ranch. As for Boyette’s warning to Grant, the testimony was offered to refute Grant’s implication at trial that he knew nothing about Narviz’s illegal activities. While Boyette’s testimony may have been prejudicial3, Narviz only argues that the testimony was inappropriate because it was hearsay. The testimony is not hearsay because the testimony was offered to show what Grant knew not whether Customs was actually investigating Narviz. Again, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting either Hildreth’s or Boyette’s testimony.