Bailey, J.
Turner’s theory of defense was entrapment. By the time of trial, the C.I.’s whereabouts were unknown. However, Turner testified at trial and sought to repeat statements allegedly made by the C.I. The State objected on hearsay grounds [footnote omitted] and Turner argued that, because the C.I. acted as an agent of the State, the C.I.’s statements were admissible as statements of a party-opponent, an exception to the hearsay rule addressed by Indiana Evidence Rule 801(d)(2). [Footnote omitted.] The trial court sustained the State’s hearsay objection and Turner made an offer of proof.
In general, ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Banks v. State, 839 N.E.2d 794, 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). However, a ruling is reviewed de novo when it turns upon a misunderstanding of a rule of evidence such as the hearsay rule. Id.
“An agent is one who acts on behalf of some person, with that person’s consent and subject to that person’s control.” Oil Supply Co., Inc. v. Hires Plant Serv., Inc., 726 N.E.2d 246, 248 (Ind. 2000). Sergeant Butler testified and described his arrangements with the C.I. and the transaction that took place. He explained that confidential informants act as “agents for us.” (Tr. 209.) In order to escape criminal prosecution for a marijuana-growing operation, the C.I. had agreed to arrange a cocaine purchase from Turner. His statements to Turner were in furtherance of that objective. We agree with Turner that, from all indications, the C.I. acted on behalf of the State and within the scope of his agency. His statements could properly be considered non-hearsay statements pursuant to Evidence Rule 801. See Banks, 839 N.E.2d at 797 (statements of a police officer regarding a matter within the scope of his employment were not hearsay); see also Allen v. State, 787 N.E.2d 473, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that, in criminal cases, the party-opponent provision in the Indiana Rules of Evidence applies to statements by government employees concerning matters within the scope of their agency or employment), trans. denied.
Assuming that the C.I.’s statements were otherwise admissible but erroneously excluded on hearsay grounds, this does not end our inquiry. “When a statement has been excluded from evidence that was not in fact hearsay, this Court will review the trial court’s decision under a harmless error analysis.” Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 704 (Ind. 1999). An error will be found harmless if, in light of the totality of the evidence in the case, its probable impact on the jury is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Id.
MAY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.