presented to the district court, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the motion was merely intended to cause delay. The refusal to grant leave for Houdek to withdraw was not an abuse of discretion. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the December 4 Motion as orally renewed at the December 20 hearing. Redd did not even request appointed counsel until December 20, the day of the hearing. This request was untimely and the district court’s refusal to provi (8th Cir.1994) (applying balancing test and determining that it was reversible error to admit oral hearsay testimony rather than direct testimony from probationer’s accomplice who was in custody and available to testify); United States v. O’Meara, 33 F.3d 20, 20-21 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The record is sufficient for our application
holding that it was reversible error to admit oral hearsay in the form of probation officers comments on police reports testimony about conversations with a state agent concerning criminal sexual conduct charges against omeara and videotapes prepared by a state agent who was not a witness holding that agent who interpreted the conversations based on personal knowledge as opposed to his general involvement in the investigation gave permissible lay witness testimony holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that it was reversible error for a district court to fail to applying a balancing test before admitting oral hearsay testimony recounting a third partys allegations of sexual assault by the probationer holding that expert testimony of irs agent regarding tax liability did not usurp the function of the jury as agent did not give her opinion about the guilt of the defendant