Opinion ID: 2338338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Admissibility of the Transcriptions

Text: The State placed in evidence a videotape of Norcross's statement to the police and audiotapes of Tina's 911 call on the night of the murder, as well as her statements to the police. Because the quality of those tapes was poor, the State also offered in evidence transcriptions of each tape, which had been merged with the original recordings on digital video discs (DVDs). The trial court listened to the original tapes, found that they were inaudible in spots, and concluded that the transcripts would be a useful listening aid. The court admitted the DVDs, which permitted the jury to listen to the tapes while viewing the transcription. After the evidence was presented, the court instructed the jury that the actual recordings, not the transcripts, were the best evidence. Norcross does not dispute the accuracy of the transcriptions, but argues that the manner in which they were presented to the jury placed improper emphasis on their value. The process of placing the transcriptions and the original tapes on DVDs reduced the already imperfect audio quality of the original tapes. As a result, when the DVDs were played, the jury had to rely primarily on the transcriptions, because the tapes were difficult to understand. Under these circumstances, Norcross contends that the transcriptions became much more than just listening aids. Norcross argues that, in order to prevent improper emphasis on the transcriptions, the only listening aid should have been paper transcriptions, which should not have been admitted into evidence. In Atkins v. State, [8] this Court discussed the factors that a trial court should consider in exercising its discretion as to the use of transcriptions: When original tape recordings are properly introduced into evidence, transcriptions of those recordings may also be received into evidence with the exercise of judicial discretion.... Initially, the Court must satisfy itself that the transcripts are accurate.... The Court may also properly exercise its discretion in deciding how, if at all, the transcripts are to be used. We note that the use of accurate transcripts as a listening aid may often be helpful to jurors if the tape recording is long or difficult to hear. A court may permit the jury to retain the transcripts during the trial and their deliberations. However, the probative value of the retention of the transcripts during trial and during deliberations should be weighed against the normal prohibitions on cumulative evidence and improper emphasis. If the transcripts are needed for any purpose, the jury must be carefully instructed concerning the use of the transcripts and must specifically be instructed that the tape recording and not the transcript is the evidence of the conversation. [9] The Superior Court followed the process suggested in Atkins. It determined that the transcriptions were accurate based on the fact that neither side disputed their accuracy. The court then listened to the original tapes and found them to be inaudible in spots. As a result, the court determined that the transcriptions would be a useful listening aid for the jurors. Finally, the court properly instructed the jury that the recordings, not the transcriptions, were the best evidence of the statements. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision that the transcriptions could be presented in the form of DVDs and admitted into evidence.