Opinion ID: 1965052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tovar's Police Interview Tape

Text: Tovar challenges as error the district court's admission of out-of-court statements by the Malaves that directly inculpated Tovar in Christenson's murder. These statements were recorded in a taped interview conducted with Tovar on February 5, 1998. The tape was played for the jury during the testimony of one of the investigating detectives, Sgt. Bohlig. Because this issue also involves a decision by the district court on the admissibility of evidence, we again review for an abuse of discretion. See Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 742-43. During this interview, the police repeatedly confronted Tovar with the Malaves' statements about the afternoon before Christenson was killed. Tovar admitted being present when the Malaves arrived at 918 DeSoto and to the events at Cristobal Malave's apartment in West Saint Paul. The police informed Tovar that the Malaves had told the police that they had instructed Tovar to rough up Christenson if necessary, but that they did not tell Tovar to kill him. The police also said that the Malaves told them that Tovar knew details of the murder that were not publicly known. The police told Tovar that the Malaves were trying to lay the whole thing off on [him]. Tovar denied any involvement in or any knowledge of Christenson's murder and told the police that Christenson had taken him home at around midnight. Tovar also repeatedly stated that he was Christenson's friend and that he went with Christenson after the meeting with the Malaves to help him keep his car. Our review of the record indicates no specific objection to the admission at trial of the tape of Tovar's police interview. At oral arguments before this court, Tovar's counsel admitted as much, but also referred us to Tovar's motion for mistrial at the close of evidence and his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We have also reviewed those motions and again find no specific argument made as to the admission of this tape. There were lengthy hearings by the district court concerning the admission of the Malaves' statements; however, these were all made in the context of their admission through the direct testimony of another testifying police detective, Lt. Reed. Lt. Reed testified to the course of the investigation and relayed the Malaves' statements as they affected the development of the police investigation and the identification of Tovar as a possible suspect. Tovar raised several objections to Lt. Reed's testimony and challenged the Confrontation Clause issues raised by the admission of Lt. Reed's hearsay testimony. The relevant statements made during a police interview may be admissible, unless precluded by the constitution, statute or the rules of evidence. See, e.g., State v. Nelson, 257 N.W.2d 356, 359 (Minn.1977); see also Minn. R. Evid. 402. We have also held that assuming a proper objection, immaterial and irrelevant portions of an extrajudicial interrogation of a defendant should generally not be received in evidence. State v. Hjerstrom, 287 N.W.2d 625, 627 (Minn.1979) (emphasis added). In this case, when the tape was offered into evidence and the court asked Tovar if there were any objections, his counsel replied, No objection, subject to previously raised legal issues. As we have already observed, there were no previously raised legal issues with respect to this tape, nor was there any request by Tovar to redact any portion of this tape. In oral arguments, Tovar stated that the court should have instructed the jury that the statements of the police during the interview were not evidence and should not be considered as substantive evidence. We see no request for such an instruction in the record. We cannot conclude from the record that it was plain error not to give such an instruction. Furthermore, on cross-examination of Sgt. Bohlig, after the tape was played, Tovar's counsel elicited from Sgt. Bohlig several admissions that during interrogations the police regularly make more of the evidence that they have to prompt suspects into divulging information. Sgt. Bohlig stated that they would often claim that other persons had told them that the suspect has details about the crime not commonly known. For example, Sgt. Bohlig specifically testified that while he told Tovar that the person in the Taco Bell video looked like Tovar, Sgt. Bohlig had not viewed the videotape at that time. Absent any request for a cautionary instruction, we cannot conclude that one was required in this case. See, e.g., State v. Holty, 307 Minn. 478, 479, 238 N.W.2d 615, 617 (1976) (holding that defendant waived error in closing argument when he failed to request cautionary instruction and chose rather to address the improper statement in closing argument). In his brief, Tovar argues that the arguments that he made concerning Lt. Reed's testimony also apply to the statements in the taped interview. However, the same legal issues are not implicated by the admission of the taped interview. Concerning Lt. Reed's testimony, Tovar objected and argued that the Malaves' statements were hearsay admitted under the Rule 804(b)(3) statement against penal interest exception. However, since many of the Malaves' statements inculpated Tovar in Christenson's murder, Tovar also raised the Confrontation Clause issues described earlier. In this context, the district court properly redacted the Malaves' statements so that only those statements that were directly against the Malaves' penal interest were admitted. On appeal, Tovar argues that the court should have redacted his taped interview with the police as well. We disagree. The same statements made by the police about what the Malaves told them in the taped interview are not hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence for the truth of the matter asserted. See Minn. R. Evid. 801(c). The prosecution argues that it did not offer the police's statements on the tape for their truth, but rather to give context to Tovar's responses and admissions on the tape. The district court ruled that providing such context was proper with respect to Sgt. Bohlig's testimony, through which the tape was admitted. Tovar's statements, while also made out of court, are excepted from the hearsay definition as party admissions. See Minn. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Because these statements are relevant and are not hearsay, the hearsay and Confrontation Clause issues raised in the context of Lt. Reed's testimony are simply not applicable here. See generally Minn. R. Evid. 402 (stating that unless otherwise excluded, all relevant evidence is admissible). Additionally, we note that there may have been sound reasons of trial strategy for Tovar not to object to the tape, but rather allow this tape to be admitted in its entirety at trial. Tovar chose not to testify at trial. While Tovar's admissions on the tape implicated him in the events leading up to Christenson's death, the tape also contained numerous denials of his involvement in the killing, including his denials that he was even present during the murder. The tape also contains several of Tovar's statements of his concern for Christenson. These included statements that Tovar and Christenson were friends and explanations of why Tovar went with Christensen on the afternoon of the murder. This taped interview was an alternative avenue to get these statements before the jury without risking cross-examination and possible impeachment. Trial counsel cannot have it both ways: failing to raise a specific objection at trial for its own reasons of trial strategy, then claiming the admission of such evidence as error on appeal. Absent clear and specific objections raised before the district court, we will generally not consider issues of the admissibility of evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. Patterson, 587 N.W.2d 45, 52 (Minn.1998). In this case, there was no plain error, and we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the taped interview. We see no compelling reasons to inquire further into this decision. See generally Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 740 (stating that before appellate court should engage in plain error analysis it must first detect an error that is plain).