his short payment stating “I’ll [catch] you on the next one,” indicated an interest in additional drug buys. There is no basis for finding entrapment as a matter of law. Id. The issue was properly left to the jury, and the jury rejected the defense. United States v. Crump, 934 F.2d 947, 956 (8th Cir.1991). Second, Kurkowski argues the district court incorrectly admitted hearsay testimony about earlier bad acts when a police officer testified about an unnamed informant’s story of Kurkowski’s earlier drug sales. Because this testimony is relevant to Kurkowski’s predisposition and the entrapment defense, Kurkowski claims it was prejudicial. Crump, 934 F.2d at 954. The Government argues the statement was admissible to show Kurkowski’s predisposition for drug dealing and the Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Crump, 934 F.2d at 954 (stating earlier bad
holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding blakely errors are subject to harmless error analysis holding evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis