for the police investigation and, if the testimony was mistakenly admitted, any mistake was harmless. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the challenged testimony was offered to rebut Kurkowski’s entrapment claim that the government targeted him without reason. The testimony, then, was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, thus was not hearsay. See United States v. Aikens, 64 F.3d 372, 376 (8th Cir.1995), vacated on other grounds by 517 U.S. 1116, 116 S.Ct. 1346, 134 L.Ed.2d 516 (1996). Even if the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and did not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that Kurkowski offered to sell drugs as the informant alleged, we conclude any mistake was harmless. United States v. Davis, 154 F.3d 772, 778 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Blake, 107 F.3d 651, 653
holding that outofcourt statements that are offered to explain a police investigation are neither hearsay nor violative of the confrontation clause holding the itc may reasonably interpret the subject to investigation provision to mean that imports covered by a suspension agreement in which an investigation is temporarily terminated are not subject to investigation while under that agreement emphasis added holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc holding for similar though not identical reasons that commodities transactions are not covered by the act