Opinion ID: 6218071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of the Recording

Text: Finally, Cordova argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the largely unintelligible one-minute portion of the recording of Montoya and Garcia’s conversation as well as Montoya’s recollections of the conversation. We review a district court’s admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 534 F.3d 1211, 1218 (10th Cir. 2008). “Because evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the district court, this court will reverse only upon a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” United States v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178, 1193 (10th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). We will not disturb a defendant’s conviction based on erroneous admission of evidence if the error is harmless. United States v. Bornfield, 145 F.3d 1123, 1131 (10th Cir. 1998). 17 Appellate Case: 20-2007 Document: 010110643560 Date Filed: 02/10/2022 Page: 18 “An erroneous admission of evidence is harmless unless it had a substantial influence on the outcome or leaves one in grave doubt as to whether it had such effect.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). Recordings objected to as unintelligible may be admitted unless the unintelligible portions render the recording untrustworthy. United States v. Davis, 780 F.2d 838, 846 (10th Cir. 1985). “Admission is especially appropriate where a witness who heard the statements also testifies and the recording gives independent support to his testimony.” Id. at 846 (quotations omitted). Here, the parties agree that the one-minute recording played at trial is mostly unintelligible, save for scattered words, including “Antone” (i.e., Cordova) and “jale” (i.e., work, like an assault or murder). The district court found that the recording’s poor quality didn’t render the recording inadmissible. It also found that Montoya and Agent Acee could testify to the contents of Garcia and Montoya’s conversation, with the intelligible portions of the recording used to support their testimony. This made the recording’s admission “especially appropriate.” The district court also noted that though the quality of the recording limited its probative value, risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh that value. This was so, the court reasoned, because the jury would hear the recording itself and Cordova would have ample opportunity to attack the recordings limitations, as well as Montoya’s and Agent Acee’s testimony. We agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclude that it didn’t abuse its discretion by admitting the recording or the related testimony. 18 Appellate Case: 20-2007 Document: 010110643560 Date Filed: 02/10/2022 Page: 19 We also conclude that even if the district court erred by admitting the recording into evidence—and it didn’t—such error would be harmless given the government’s other evidence against Cordova. See Bornfield, 145 F.3d at 1131.