Title: STATE v WARWICK
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 11988
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 24, 1972

No. 11988 IN T H E SUPF.EME C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1972 THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ORVILLE ARCHIE WARWICK, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Cou~lsel of Record: For Appellant : Sandall, Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Charles F. Moses argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. David V. Gliko, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. Thomas A. Olson, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana. Thomas D. Gai, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana. Submitted: January 11, 1972 F i l e d : FEB 2 4 ' { ~ i + J Decided FEB 2 1972 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a conviction of murder i n the f i r s t degree. Defendant was t r i e d by a jury i n t h e d i s t r i c t court of the eighteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Gallatin County, found g u i l t y and sentenced t o liEe imprisonment. A t about the hour of 8:30 a.m. on December 23, 1964, M r . Earl Plum, an employee of Glacier Mountain Cheese Co., Gallatin Gateway, while traveling a long Cottonwood Road, south of Bozeman, came upon the s c a n t i l y clad body of a young woman. Plum immedi- a t e l y called the s h e r i f f of Gallatin County, Con McClurg, and then returned t o the s i t u s of t h e body and blocked off the road t o see t h a t nothing disturbed t h e scene u n t i l the law o f f i c e r s arrived. Plum t e s t i f i e d the body lay on a %shall bridge, clad only i n a bra and panties and t h a t a dress, s l i p , coat, and boots were i n a p i l e a short distance from the body. Sheriff McClurg, upon being n o t i f i e d by Plum, gathered together a number of s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s , Bozeman police o f f i c e r s , and the then county attorney, Page Wellcome, and proceeded t o the scene a r r i v i n g a t about 9:40 a.m. Pictures were taken; measure- ments were made of the area ; and p l a s t e r c a s t s were made of t i r e marks. A l l physical evidence was analyzed by the l o c a l o f f i c i a l s and then sent t o t h e FBI laboratory. This physical evidence was introduced a t t r i a l , some of which w i l l be referred t o l a t e r i n our discussion. A broken watch which had stopped a t 4:20 and an engagement ring were on the body of the young woman. The body was removed t o a funeral home i n Bozeman where D r . Mark Young, the coroner, and D r . Volney Steele, a pathologist, performed an autopsy a t about 11:30 a.m., on December 23. Their report shows the following: face battered and bruised, mandible fractured, fractured dislocation of l e f t ankle, many abrasions, deformed pelvis, fractured c l a v i c l e and sternum. In t h e i r opinion the cause of death was due t o "severe external trauma". N o identification of the body was made or announced t o the public u n t i l between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. the evening of December 23, when a Mrs. Mary Kuhar of Billings, Montana, arrived and identified the body a s t h a t of her daughter, Bobbi Clark. Bobbi Clark, a graduate from Montana S t a t e University, was a teacher a t Kalispell, Montana. O n the evening of December 22, 1964, she drove from Kalispell t o Bozeman. She was accompanied by her roommate a s f a r a s Three Forks, her roommate's home. The roommate t e s t i f i e d t h a t Bobbi l e f t Three Forks a t about 1:30 a.m., December 23, and her car was noted a r r i v i n g i n Bozeman a t about the hour of 2:00 a.m. by a l o c a l police o f f i c e r . Jack Wandler, Bobbi lark's fiancee, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had expected her t o stay a t h i s apartment; t h a t on the evening of December 22 he had cleaned the apartment and while waiting f o r her t o a r r i v e he had f a l l e n asleep and had not awakened u n t i l about 6:QO a.m. Notfinding Bobbi there, he called her roommate in Three Forks; made another c a l l t o a local friend of ~ o b b i ' s , a Mrs. Fulker; and then went outside where he found ~obbi's locked car parked i n an alleyway parking space back of h i s apartment. H e then went several blocks t o a f r a t e r n i t y house t o find out i f h i s apartment mate, Jerry Sargent, had seen or heard from Bobbi, and, learning t h a t he had n o t , he returned t o h i s apartment and called t h e Bozeman police a t 6:45 a.m. The chief of police, Ron Cutting, answered the c a l l ; checked the parked auto belonging t o Bobbi Clark; and obtained a picture of her from Wandler. This picture was turned over t o Sheriff McClurg. Chief Cutting and another o f f i c e r returned t o the c a r where they observed about a dozen footprints of a woman's shoe on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e of the c a r which disappeared when they got t o hard snow. Tire marks of another c a r were observed pro- gressing up t o ~ o b b i ' s c a r , but no c a s t s could be made of those marks. Plaster c a s t s of t i r e tracks found near the body were sent t o the FBI. O n December 31, 1964, the FBI f i l e d a report which s t a t e d t h a t the tread design of the c a s t s "conform most closely t o the -design of a Cordovan low-profile j e t t i r e 1 \ A t the time the comparison of tread designs was made, the FBI f i l e did not contain a Crest Imperial tread design. A t t r i a l the FBI agent t e s t i f i e d t h a t "we j u s t c a n ' t g e t every design t h a t is made and keep up t o date * * *." The FBI sent a copy of the Cordovan tread design t o Sheriff McClurg t o a s s i s t him i n h i s investigation. Prior t o receiving the FBI report, the Bozeman police on December 23, i n i t i a t e d a survey of "every t i r e dealer i n town" i n an attempt t o identify the type and make of the t i r e which made the tracks t h a t the p l a s t e r c a s t s were made from. Finally, i n the e a r l y part of January 1965, a t i r e was located a t a amble's s t o r e t h a t "appeared t o match t h e casts." That t i r e was a Crest Imperial. "Crest Imperial" is a trade name used on t i r e s that are marketed only by amble's. On the basis of t h i s information Sheriff McClurg early i n January advertised i n t h e loca 1 news media t h a t h i s o f f i c e was seeking information "with respect t o t h e type or kind of t i r e " which he believed was involved i n the death of Bobbi Clark. On January 15, 1965, a short time a f t e r the s h e r i f f ' s public inquiry about the t i r e s , t h e defendant reported t o the Bozeman police t h a t two t i r e s ; had been s t o l e n from h i s residence. Also on January 15, 1965, one Roy Foster, while on h i s way home from work, found a Crest Imperial narrow white sidewall t i r e on t h e Bridger Canyon r ~ a d , sometime around 4:40 p.m. The t i r e was found alongside the guardrail next t o the road. Foster t e s t i f i e d 'yt was extremely clean" and "looked a s though it might have been washed." Foster stopped and picked up t h e t i r e because he had heard "ads on t h e radio" t h a t the police were looking f o r a s e t of t i r e s and "1 noticed t h a t it [the t i r e ] hadn't been there t h a t morning when I went t o work". Foster took the t i r e home and called t h e s h e r i f f ' s office. A deputy s h e r i f f came t o ~ o s t e r ' s home and took the t i r e i n t o custody. The t i r e had been found approximately four-tenths of a mile up the Bridger Canyon road from a f i s h hatchery and rock s l i d e . On January 18, 1965, one Alfred Kinney, while plowing snow on t h e Bridger Canyon road, "noticed a t i r e lying up on the s i d e of t h e h i l l there a t the rock slide". Kinney stopped h i s truck and secured t h e t i r e because he a l s o had heard "advertising on the radio and the papers" t h a t the s h e r i f f was looking f o r t i r e s . The t i r e found by Kinney was a ''Crest'' and "it was i n good shape." Kinney turned the t i r e over t o the s h e r i f f ' s office. Subsequent investigation established t h a t defendant's c a r had had two Crest Imperial t i r e s on it. The recovered t i r e s were s e n t t o the FBI laboratory t o be compared with the plajter c a s t s made a t t h e scene where Bobbi Clark's body was found. A n FBI agent t e s t i f i e d a t the t r i a l t h a t the p l a s t e r c a s t s made where t h e body was found and the t i r e s located i n t h e Bridger Canyon area were of the same s i z e , same tread design, and had the same degree of wear. "Further, it was e i t h e r these two t i r e s t h a t made these two impressions o r two other t i r e s having the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s t o tread s i z e , tread s i z e and tread design and worn i n t h i s manner, worn t o t h i s degree." These t i r e s a r e a part of t h e circumstantial evidence t h a t brought focus upon the defendant a s a suspect. O n February 2, 1965, a t the request of Burleigh Allen, a former FBI agent and a private investigator hired by Bobbi lark's mother t o a s s i s t local law o f f i c i a l s i n the investigation, defendant voluntarily, a f t e r being advised of h i s r i g h t s , consented t o allow the local law enforcement o f f i c i a l s and M r . Allen t o search h i s 1959 Chevrolet car and h i s apartment. This authorization went t o a l l physical items of evidence, fingerprint analysis, and chemical i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any substances they f e l t should be analyzed. With t h i s consent, the law o f f i c e r s and M r . Allen completely checked the c a r , taking it t o a service s t a t i o n where it was put up on a h o i s t . Concerning t h a t inspection M r . Allen t e s t i f i e d : " W e noticed, I noticed, t h a t it was extremely clean. I mean it wasn't a s though-it had been through mud or anything l i k e t h a t ." Concerning the i n t e r i o r of t h e car, he t e s t i f i e d : "The i n t e r i o r of the c a r , * * * was a l s o ex- ceptionally clean. I t On t h a t same day, February 2 , 1965, M r . Allen, i n the presence of several loca 1 law enforcement o f f i c e r s , took a t h i r t y - eight page statement from t h e defendant concerning many facets of the investigation. This statement was taped and transcribed. In t h e i n t e r v a l between February 2 , 1965,and the time of t r i a l , some f i v e years, the tapes disappeared. A t the t r i a l , a s t a t e ' s witness, one Dick Kountz, t e s t i f i e d - - t h a t sometime i n the f i r s t part of February 1965, he was out poaching deer with defendant and while i n the process of dressing out a deer t h e defendant told him "* * * he was t h e one who k i l l e d Bobbi Clark". This alleged statement of defendant t o Kountz did not become known t o the investigating o f f i c e r s u n t i l nearly f i v e years a f t e r the homicide when, f o r some reason not explained a t the t r i a l , Kountz gave a statement t o t h e county attorney on January 3, 1970. One other witness appeared a t the t r i a l who had not appeared and given testimony during t h e 1965 investigation. That witness was Mrs. Judith Veltkamp, who had been employed i n 1964 a s a grocery checker a t the Buttrey Store where defendant worked a s a box boy and a l s o stacked shelves. This witness, the wife of a l o c a l police sergeant, gave t h e county attorney a statement i n January 1970, which statement focused additional a t t e n t i o n on defendant. She t e s t i f i e d a t the t r i a l t h a t between the hours of 12:OO and 12:30 p.m. on December 23, 1964, she had t h e following conversation with defendant a t the Buttrey Store: "A. He had come i n from taking out an order of groceries and he s a i d , 'They have j u s t found a g i r l t h a t has been drugged t o death. ' "Q. What did you say? A. I said rugged?' and he said 'No, dragged. I "Q. What did you say t o t h a t ? A . I s a i d , 'Where was 1 i t ? ' and he s a i d , O n a county road. I "Q. And what did you say? A . I asked him who i t was. "Q. What did he say t o t h a t ? A. W e said t h a t it was Bobbi Clark, and I asked him i f he knew her and he s a i d yes. "Q. While t h e Defendant was r e l a t i n g t h i s t o you, did he speak c l e a r l y ? A . No. "Q. D o you r e c a l l how he spoke? A . He, he was extremely nervous and excited. "Q. Did he s t u t t e r a t a l l ? A . Yes, he acted l i k e h i s tongue was too big f o r h i s mouth. He couldn't g e t t h e words out. Q . Did the Defendant r e l a t e anything e l s e t o you during t h i s conversation? A . I asked him how he found out about t h i s and he s a i d , 'I heard it on t h e c a r radio when I took t h e lady's groceries out. 1 1 ' According t o the testimony given by t h e coroner, t h e s h e r i f f , and other investigating o f f i c e r s , no p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i- c a t i o n of Bobbi Clark was made o r announced u n t i l a f t e r 6:00 p.m. t h a t day, December 23. Recognizing t h e above incriminatory f a c t s developed a g a i n s t defendant a t t h e t r i a l , , we, a s was t h e jury, a r e faced with a case t h a t is l a r g e l y circumstantial. Almost f i v e years passed between t h e finding of Bobbi ~ l a r p s body and t h e f i l i n g of a n Information charging defendant with murder i n the f i r s t degree. Another s i x months passed before defendant went t o t r i a l . W e s p e c i f i c a l l y note these f a c t o r s because of t h e d i s - crepancies i n statements given during the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n e a r l y 1965, and those given a t t h e t r i a l , a s w e l l a s the f a c t t h a t a change of personnel had taken place i n t h e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s of G a l l a t i n County, i . e . t h e county a t t o r n e y and s h e r i f f . Defendant r a i s e s s i x issues on appeal. 1) The court erred i n not granting a continuance. 2) The court erred i n t h a t it should have d i s q u a l i f i e d i t s e l f f o r cause and t h e motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of judge should have been granted. 3) The court made p r e j u d i c i a l comments. 4) The evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e v e r d i c t . 5) The admission of defendant's statement was e r r o r . 6 ) The court unduly limited cross-examination. W e find t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e t o be Issue 5, t h e t r i a l courfs admission i n t o evidence of defendant's alleged voluntary statement given on February 2, 1965, which a l l e g e d statement had been taped and then transcribed. A t t r i a l , t h e statement was i n t h e typewritten form. I n view of our finding t h a t such ad- mission was p r e j u d i c i a l , therefore n e c e s s i t a t i n g a new t r i a l , we w i l l focus our discussion on Issue 5, recognizing t h a t on r e t r i a l Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 , i f they a r e i s s u e s , ought not t o a r i s e . W e w i l l b r i e f l y comment on Issue 6 l a t e r i n t h i s opinion. Issue 5. It is t h e duty of t h i s Court t o a s c e r t a i n whether o r n o t e r r o r s made a t t r i a l a r e p r e j u d i c i a l , f o r only upon such p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r s may a case be returned t o the d i s t r i c t court f o r r e t r i a l . S t a t e v. T o t t e r d e l l , 135 Mont. 56, 336 P.2d 696. W e recognize t h e i n s t a n t case was a most d i f f i c u l t one t h a t took many days of t r i a l and l i k e the rec,ord of most extended t r i a l s , it could hardly be f r e e of e r r o r . A s we noted i n S t a t e v. Cor, 144 Mont. 323, 340, 396 P.2d 86: "Our Constitutions, both Federal and S t a t e , guarantee a f a i r t r i a l , not a perfect one. I t Here, t h e t r i a l judge recognized t h e d i f f i c u l t y of t h e question before him when he ruled t o admit t h e statement: "COURT: This is a d i f f i c u l t question and I am w e l l aware of t h e various cases, leading and otherwise, and I think t h e t e s t is whether o r not it was vol- untary and I think when you g e t r i g h t down t o it--- and t h a t is what it i s , because a l l of t h e n i c e t i e s t h a t t h e judges and lawyers a r e inclined t o embroider t h e r u l e with, i f we follow t o its ultimate conclu- s i o n , perhaps no voluntary statement can ever be used against an accused unless it is made i n open court and maybe t h a t is the way it should be; I am not saying t h a t t h a t is. Personally, I doubt it, but I think I have read t h i s statement and a t its very most it is admissions. Whether they a r e against i n t e r e s t o r not, I am not a t a l l sure about that. The ideal s i t u a t i o n would be, a s M r . Moses indicated, the interview was taped a f t e r thorough warning and advice of a l l your constitutiona 1 r i g h t s and then a transcription of the interview and then a correlation between the a c t u a l tape and the interview and than a reten- t i o n of t h e tape f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n f o r those such a s M r . Moses and h i s c l i e n t . But, I suppose we have t o deal with the p r a c t i c a l i t i e s of l i f e and it has been a long time -- five years. 1 l I am going t o admit it. I have thought about it q u i t e a l i t t l e b i t since the noon recess and your objection may be a reversable one but I don't think so. I think t h i s is a voluntary statement. "Here is a man who was advised of h i s r i g h t s . I think it is on page 26. It s o r t of underlines the very thing t h a t I have t o assume without any hesitancy -- t h a t t h i s witness is t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h and he has said t h a t he advised him of these r i g h t s and then he says farther along on the interview, I almost two-thirds of the way through he s a i d , Again, l i k e we said before, you know you don't have t o ans- wer these questions --- . 1 1 1 In s o ruling, the court r e l i e d upon S t a t e v. Stevens, 60 Mont. 390, 199 P. 256, which held t h a t admissions against i n t e r e s t a r e always competent without foundation. This Court has long recognized t h a t admissions against i n t e r e s t a r e admis- s i b l e , but t h e voluntariness of such admissions must be estab- lished. S t a t e v. Zachmeier, 151 Mont. 256, 441 P.2d 737. The "foundation" referred t o i n Stevens went t o t h e voluntariness of the admission, and a s such is not relevant. Here, no one t e s t i - fied a s t o the accuracy of t h e transcription of the tapes which were e i t h e r l o s t o r destroyed sometime between the time of the taking of the statement and the time of t r i a l . There was no way t o t e s t the accuracy of the statement, other than t h e memory of M r . Burleigh Allen, the interrogator. M r . Allen t e s t i f i e d he had not heard the tape recording; yet some f i v e years l a t e r he believed it t o be the same. A t the time of the admission of the statement, counsel f o r defendant argued t o the court t h a t before such a taped i n t e r - view can be admitted t h a t i "* * * a person [must] t e s t i f y t h a t t h a t taped interview was heard by him and compared with the reproduction i n writing [so] t h a t he can then be i n a position t o lay a foundation t o say t h a t t h a t which appears i n writing is exactly the same, l e t t e r for l e t t e r , word f o r word, t h a t there have been no changes, no a l t e r a t i o n s , no mistakes, and t h a t nothing appears but an a c t u a l accurate reproduc- tion of t h a t tape recording. "This witness has t e s t i f i e d , of course, t h a t he has not heard the tape recording and he j u s t be- lieves it is t h e same and we cannot t e l l o r do not know whether there were any parts t h a t may have been l e f t out o r any e r r o r s i n the transcription and unless a foundation is l a i d i n t h a t respect, Your Honor, c e r t a i n l y we a r e j u s t guessing a s t o its accuracy and i n t h a t respect we think no founda- t i o n has been laid.'' Counsel f o r defendant was substantially correct i n s t a t i n g the law t o the t r i a l court and t h e court should have e i t h e r required further foundation o r denied the statement. Later, i n defendant's cross-examination of M r . Allen a f t e r the statement had been admitted, it was revealed: t h a t a f t e r de- fendant gave the statement other interviews were had with de- fendant; t h a t additions and corrections were made t o t h e statement given on February 2; t h a t no tapes were made of these unnumbered interviews nor do the additions and corrections made t o t h e February 2 statement appear on the copy of the statement i n t r o - duced a t t r i a l . The s t a t e argues t h a t even though the tape was not i n t r o - duced, t h a t the transcription was admissible a s a business record, relying upon section 93-801-2, R.C.M. 1947: "Proof of business records. A record of an a c t , condition or event, s h a l l , i n s o f a r a s relevant, be competent evidence i f the custodian or other qualified witness t e s t i f i e s t o its i d e n t i t y and the mode of i t s preparation, and i f it was made i n the regular course of business, a t o r near the time of the a c t , condition or event, and i f , i n the opinion of t h e court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such a s t o j u s t i f y its admission." The s t a t e c i t e s S t a t e v. Meyer, 37 Wash.2d 759, 226 P.2d 204, a s authority for the admission of a typewritten statement without the tape. Washington has a s t a t u t e similar t o section 93-801-2, R.C.M. 1947. Meyer i s c l e a r l y distinguishable on the facts. There, a mentally incompetent female . was admitted t o a hospital where she had previously been a patient. In i t s regular course of business the h o s p i t a l kept c l i n i c a l records of its patents, and i n the making of her record one of the s t a f f i n t e r - viewed t h e patient some ten days a f t e r her admission. Part of the interview of questions and answers was recorded on a Sound- s c r i b e r and t h e r e a f t e r transcribed by a t y p i s t . The Soundscriber record was destroyed. Although the t y p i s t who transcribed the statement did not t e s t i f y , one of t h e hospital physicians, who had asked t h e questions, identified the statement a s p a r t of the c l i n i c a l record of the patient. In Meyer, the court allowed t h e questions and answers t o be read a s portraying the s t a t e of mind of t h e patient. The Washington Supreme Court allowed the statement i n t o evidence, noting t h a t the s t a t u t e gave the court wide discretion and, too, t h a t the evidence was not a part of the s t a t e ' s case, but arose on cross-examination of one cf the h o s p i t a l s t a f f called a s a witness by the defendant. Such a r e not the f a c t s here. While w e a r e not concerned with sound recordings i n t h i s case and a r e concerned only with the t r a n s c r i p t of the recording, nevertheless we w i l l discuss recordings generally. Sound re- cordings a r e admissible i n both c i v i l and criminal cases where the recording is both materia'l and relevent t o the issues before the court and a proper foundation is l a i d . That foundation must be a s i s s e t forth i n 58 ALR2d 1024, Admissibility of Sound Recordings i n Evidence, § 2 , pp. 1027, 1028: 1 F The cases a r e i n general agreement a s t o what constitutes a proper foundation for t h e admission of a sound recording. They a l s o indicate a reason- ably s t r i c t adherence t o the rules prescribed f o r t e s t i n g the admissibility of recordings, which have been outlined a s follows: (1) a showing t h a t t h e recording device was capable of taking testimony, (2) a showing t h a t the operator of the device was competent, (3) establishment of authenticity and correctness of t h e recording, (4) a showing t h a t changes, additions, or deletions have not been made, (5) a showing of the manner of t h e preservation of the recording, (6) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the speakers, (7) a showing t h a t the testimony e l i c i t e d was volun- t a r i l y made without any kind of inducement." The above foundation c r i t e r i a has been adhered t o with minor variations i n the following cases: S t a t e v. Baca, 82 N.M. 144, 477 P.2d 320; S t a t e v. Hendricks, (Mo. 1970), 456 S.W.2d 11; Parnell v. S t a t e , (Fla. 1969), 218 So.2d 535; Cummings v. Jess Edwards, Inc., (Tex. 1969), 445 S.W.2d 767; Kruse v. Coos Head Timber Company, 248 Ore. 294, 432 P.2d 1009; S t a t e v. Driver, 38 N . J. 255, 183 A.2d 655. See a l s o 64 Harvard Law Revnew 1369. The c r i t e r i a f o r the foundation f o r admission of tapes or records a r e s p e c i f i c . Where a transcription is Lncroduced along with the record, and a proper foundation has been l a i d f o r the record it w i l l be admissible, for the transcription can be compared with the record o r tape. There a r e some cases where only t h e transcription of the recording has been offered and though objected t o on the basis t h a t the transcription is n o t the best evidence, courts have admitted the transcription where a proper foundation was l a i d f o r t h e admission. Applebaum v. Applebaum, 84 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1948); McGuire v. S t a t e , 200 Md. 601, 92 A.2d 582 (1952). However, i n S t a t e v. Baca, 82 N.M. 144, 477 P.2d 320, a police o f f i c e r ' s notes t h a t had been transcribed from a tape recorded interview between the defendant and the informer were held inadmissible due t o f a i l u r e t o lay a proper foundation Eor both t h e recording i t s e l f and the subsequent transcription. That is precisely the f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n here, except under our factual s i t u a t i o n the tape is missing or destroyed. This loss a r destruction of the tape o r record has, i n t h e few cases we have found from other j u r i s d i c t i o n s , raised the best evidence r u l e objection, and where admission has been allowed it has only been a f t e r the prosecution has proven the authenticity of the trans- cription--that is, a f t e r laying the proper foundation a s t o the accuracy of t h e secondary evidence following the guide l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n 58 ALR2d 1024, heretofore quoted. W e find the circumstances i n t h i s case c l e a r l y show the defendant's statement should not have been admitted and t h a t prejudicial e r r o r occurred when it was admitted. Finally, we w i l l discuss defendant's Issue 6 which re- l a t e s t o defendant's contention t h a t the t r i a l court unduly r e s t r i c t e d h i s cross-examination. Exhibit #40, Bobbi lark's watch, had been accepted i n t o evidence t o show e i t h e r the time of death o r the time the body was run over out on Cottonwood Road. On cross-examination of L.D.W. Anderson, deputy s h e r i f f a t the time of the homocide, defendant's counsel asked the following quest ion : "Q. Now, w i l l you t e l l t h i s court and jury whether you have been a b l e t o find any connec- t i o n of t h a t proposed exhibit #40, the watch, with Archie Warwick?" Objection was made by t h e county attorney as follows: "MR. ANDERSON: That is objected t o a s invading the province of the court and jury and c a l l i n g f o r a conclusion of t h i s witness. 1 1 After considerable discussion between court and counsel, the objection was sustained. Upon r e t r i a l , should t h i s question be asked, t h e court should permit it t o be answered. It follows from what has been s a i d t h a t the conviction of the defendant should be reversed and t h e cause remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court with instructions t o grant a new t r i a l . It is so ordered. il 1 s s o c i a t e ~ u s t i c e