Opinion ID: 1229173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Exclusion of alleged audiotape of telephone conversation

Text: In response to questions from defense counsel on cross-examination, Poole denied calling the defendant's mother and requesting money in order to leave town before the trial. [12] Poole testified instead that the defendant's mother had called her and offered her money. The following day, during the defendant's case-in-chief, the defendant sought to play an audiotape of an alleged telephone conversation between Poole and Jean Rodoussakis, the defendant's mother, in which Poole requested money from Ms. Rodoussakis in exchange for leaving town and being unavailable to testify. The trial court excluded the audiotape because its disclosure was not timely and because the requirements of Rule 613(b) had not been met. [13] The defendant claims that the exclusion of the audiotape constitutes reversible error. The defendant essentially argues that the requirements of Rule 613(b) were complied with because [t]he witness was given every opportunity to deny making the statement and indeed she did. In support of his argument, the defendant again cites State v. King, supra . In King, after the daughter of the defendant denied, during the defendant's case-in-chief, that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her, the State was permitted to admit into evidence, during its rebuttal, the witness' videotaped statement to the contrary. The defendant quotes this Court's statement in King that this case presents an instance where a witness' prior inconsistent statements do possess a unique advantage over her testimony during the trial in that it allowed the jury to decide the issue of the witness' credibility on two occasions, both of which the jury was able to observe. Citing, inter alia, King, 183 W.Va. at 446, 396 S.E.2d at 408. A review of the record reveals that one of the grounds for the trial court's exclusion of the audiotape was that Poole, at the time of her cross-examination, was never informed of the existence of the audiotape, and, therefore, never had an opportunity to respond to it. We agree with the trial court. Rule 613(b) clearly provides, in part, that [e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same.  Because Poole was not made aware of the existence of the audiotape, she had no opportunity to explain its contents. As the trial court suggested, Poole might have made any of several plausible explanations for the audiotape's existence including an assertion that the audiotape was a fabrication. She may have denied that it was her voice on the audiotape. However, because the defendant did not disclose the existence of the audiotape until the day after Poole testified, she would not have had the opportunity to offer any of these explanations. This is contrary to the requirement of Rule 613(b). Finally, we believe that King is of no assistance to the defendant here. In King, the witness was aware of the videotaped statement during her testimony and even offered an explanation as to why that statement contradicted her in-court testimony. The videotape was admitted so that the jury could test the validity of the witness' explanation. We find, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the audiotape. [14] 3.