Opinion ID: 1704411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of taped conversations

Text: Austin asserts that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence three recorded conversations between Austin and Werner Kunkel. Austin and Kunkel met at the penitentiary in 1985. Kunkel subsequently lived with Sandy Kjosa for five years, and the couple had two children. Sandy subsequently met and married Austin. At the time these recordings were made, Kunkel's two children were living with Austin and Sandy. The recordings were made on September 17 and 18, 1992, at Austin's place of employment. Kunkel, wearing a wire, visited with Austin on three separate occasions. The first conversation lasted approximately one hour; the second, approximately 50 minutes; and the third, approximately 15 minutes. The conversations centered almost exclusively upon visitation difficulties regarding Kunkel's two children. During the course of these conversations, Kunkel expressed concern for the children's safety and, in a few instances, vaguely threatened Austin with physical harm if Austin used drugs in front of, or harmed, Kunkel's children. Kunkel also told Austin that he would seek court intervention if the visitation difficulties were not worked out. Austin asserts that these taped conversations were inadmissible under Section 29-21-12.1, N.D.C.C.:  Statements, admissions, or confessions procured by duress, fraud, threat, or promises inadmissible in any criminal action. Any statement, admission, or confession procured from any person charged with crime in a state court, which was obtained by duress, fraud, threat, or promises, is not admissible in evidence against said person in any criminal action. Austin asserts that we should give the statute its broadest possible reading: If a defendant has made a statement during a conversation in which the other party has used any conduct or language which could be construed to constitute duress, fraud, threat, or promise, all statements by the defendant during that conversation are inadmissible. The statute, however, does not say that all statements made by a defendant are inadmissible if a threat, promise, duress, or fraud, unrelated to the prejudicial statements, occurred during the conversation. The statute, on its face, says [a]ny statement, admission, or confession procured from any person ... which was obtained by duress, fraud, threat, or promises is inadmissible. The trial court, although concluding that Kunkel did make statements that could be regarded as threats, held that those statements related solely to Kunkel's concern that Austin would use drugs in front of the children or hurt the children, and did not procure or obtain Austin's statements regarding the Abernathy murders. We agree with the trial court's rationale. The statute precludes admission of statements that are procured or obtained by threat. For the statute to apply, there must be some connection or nexus between the threatening comments and the defendant's statement. Because the alleged threats were wholly unrelated to Austin's statements, Section 29-21-12.1, N.D.C.C., does not preclude their admission. [1]