Opinion ID: 1796517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the court erred by admitting into evidence a copy of a document under circumstances unfair to tina hunt and where alteration was suspected?

Text: Tina alleged that her attorney was barred from speaking to her. Joey Langston, a Booneville attorney, testified that he attempted to speak by telephone at 6:21 and 6:28 p.m.  shortly before she gave her written statement. Langston alleged that the police dispatcher told him that Tina could not come to the telephone. The dispatcher disputed Langston's assertion, and testified that Langston did not call. She used a phone log from the Benton County Sheriff's Department, which she maintained, to refresh her memory that Langston did not call. The phone log was not admitted into evidence, but marked Exhibit No. 1 for Identification Only. Tina asserts that the admission of this phone log violated the Best Evidence Rule, as stated in Mississippi Rule of Evidence 1002. However, the telephone log was not admitted. Furthermore, a document used to refresh one's recollection under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 612 does not have to be admissible under the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300, 1303 (Miss. 1988); Gardner v. State, 455 So.2d 796, 799-800 (Miss. 1984). The only requirement is that the witness have no present memory of the event. Scott v. State, 446 So.2d 580, 585 (Miss. 1984). It is clear that Ada Tucker, the police dispatcher, stated that she could not remember all those calls on the day in question. Thus, she testified to her lack of memory before she received a copy of the phone log. Therefore, the necessary predicate for use of the log was made. Tina complains that Tucker did not make the copy which was used to refresh her memory. There is no requirement under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 612 that the witness make and use her own copy of the document used to refresh her recollection. Tina also complains that she did not see the original of the document which Tucker used to refresh her memory. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 612 states that the adverse party has the right to review the document used to refresh a witness' memory, but makes no mention of the original of a document. Lambert v. State, 524 So.2d 576, 579 (Miss. 1988). Furthermore, Tina did not object on that ground. As a result, this assertion of error is barred for lack of timely objection. Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148, 1154 (Miss. 1992). Therefore, this assignment of error has no merit.