Opinion ID: 1163779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the tape recording of ward's statement to the police was properly admitted

Text: Defendant [ ] contends the court erred in admitting into evidence, for the truth of its contents, a tape recording of Ben Ward's statements to the police. Specifically, defendant argues the prosecution did not comply with the foundational requirements of Evidence Code section 770. The controversial tape was played for the jury after prosecution witness Ben Ward had completed his testimony at trial. This taped conversation (between the police and Ward) had Ward declaring that, while outside [defendant's] house, he had heard defendant raising his voice against Bubba. Also, the tape contained Ward's statement that, upon re-entering the house, he could smell the odor from a recent gunshot. Altogether, the tape flatly contradicted Ward's trial testimony, where Ward supported [defendant's] contention that Bubba was already dead when he (defendant) entered the house. Evidence Code section 1235 provides: Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770. Evidence Code section 770, which gives alternative foundational requirements, reads: Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: (a) The witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement; or (b) The witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the action. (1) The above sections, in effect, permit a prior inconsistent statement of a witness to be admitted not only to impeach his credibility, but also to prove the truth of the matters therein asserted. ( People v. Green, 3 Cal.3d 981, 985 [92 Cal. Rptr. 494, 479 P.2d 998].) (2) Moreover these sections, contrary to defendant's assertions, amply preserve the right to confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. ( California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 [26 L.Ed.2d 489, 90 S.Ct. 1930]; People v. Green, supra, 3 Cal.3d 981, 989-991.) (3) In the instant case, the record clearly reveals that the prosecution, in its direct examination of Ward, challenged his in-court testimony by making direct reference to Ward's earlier, and tape-recorded, statements to the police. On the stand, responding to such references, Ward denied telling the police that he and Karen left [defendant's] house, denied saying that, upon re-entering the house, he could smell the aroma from a freshly fired gun, and further denied that defendant had suggested he (Ward) claim, if questioned, that Bubba's death had preceded the return from Los Angeles. Prosecution interrogation thus, we conclude, satisfied the Evidence Code section 770 requirement that a witness, while testifying, be given an opportunity to explain or deny past inconsistent statements. The fact this opportunity occurred prior to the actual playing of the tape is without significance. (See People v. Johnson, 68 Cal.2d 646, 650 [68 Cal. Rptr. 599, 441 P.2d 111]; People v. Petersen, 23 Cal. App.3d 883, 889 [100 Cal. Rptr. 590].)