Opinion ID: 2422626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Transcript Containing Inaudible Designations

Text: Lastly, defendant contests the state's use, on recross-examination, of a transcript of a telephone conversation, between defendant and Ms. Timbo, that contained several inaudible designations. The defendant argues that the trial justice erred when he allowed the state to question defendant using this transcript because the transcript did not relate the full conversation and thus could have caused the jury to take the statements that defendant made out of their proper context. The state points out that the transcript was given to the jury, with no objection from defendant, for the purpose of comprehending the audio recordings that were played in court, and that the jury did not have the transcript with them during deliberations. The state also argues that defendant did not suffer any harm from the transcript's admission because the trial justice instructed the jury that the transcript was only an approximation of the recorded conversations and that the recordings themselves were the best evidence of those conversations. Finally, the state points out that defendant did not cite any legal authorities for his contention that the trial justice erred in admitting the portion of the transcript that contained inaudible designations. We review the trial justice's ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. Flori, 963 A.2d at 941. Here, the basis for defendant's contention that the trial justice erred in allowing the state to refer to the transcript in its recross-examination is far from clear. Nor does defendant cite any legal authority to support his summary argument on this issue. Moreover, we are at a loss to determine what harm has been visited upon the defendant as a result of the state's use of the transcript to question him. When the state attempted to question the defendant about his awareness of the fact that his telephone calls at the ACI were being recorded, the defendant objected to the state's use of the portion of that transcript that contained Ms. Timbo asking the defendant what happened to her face. The trial justice ruled that Ms. Timbo's question was necessary to provide context to the defendant's statement that he could not tell Ms. Timbo exactly what it was    on the phone. By this point in the trial, the recording of the telephone conversation already had been played for the jury, and the jury already had received a transcript of the conversation. In addition, the trial justice instructed the jury that the transcript was only an approximation of the recorded conversations and that the recordings themselves were the best evidence of those conversations. We are, therefore, well satisfied that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in overruling the defendant's objection to the state's use of the transcript to recross-examine the defendant.