Opinion ID: 2433128
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Audio Tapes and Corresponding Transcripts

Text: In Points of Error Nos. One and Two, Respondent asserts that the Special Master abused his discretion in admitting various tape recordings in evidence, as well as written excerpts of portions of those tape recordings. The evidence in the instant case shows that in late October and early November of 1991, Officer Joe Haralson of the Texas Rangers received information that Respondent had agreed to take money in exchange for some leniency or dismissal in sentencing in a case involving a D.W.I. probation. This information was provided by Hollis Mathews, the probationer in that case. [5] After receiving this information, Officer Haralson met with Mathews and initiated an investigation of these allegations. After his preliminary inquiries, Officer Haralson concluded that the matter warranted further investigation and contacted Investigator Felix Mares of the Galveston County District Attorney's Office. From there, the investigation into the alleged misconduct of Respondent became a joint effort between Officer Haralson and Investigator Mares. The evidence in the instant case shows that the audio cassette tapes which were introduced into evidence were duplicates from a reel-to-reel recorder properly identified as a Nagra SNS. This Nagra SNS recorder is a portable tape recording device that was used in the investigation by Officer Haralson and Investigator Mares to record the meetings and conversations between Mathews and Respondent. The recorder was concealed from Respondent by placing it on the body of Mathews during these meetings. A back-up to the Nagra SNS was also used, that back-up being a one-way body transmitter whose signal was to be recorded by a listener using a second tape recorder. Copies of the Nagra SNS reel-to-reel tapes, in cassette form, were made by Felix Mares, Chief Investigator, Galveston County Criminal District Attorney's Office and were offered as duplicates of the original reel-to-reel tapes pursuant to TEX.R.CIV. EVID. 1003. Respondent made no objection to the admission of the audio cassette tapes into evidence as duplicates, but rather, limited any objection to the authenticity of the tapes. The Special Master admitted the duplicates of the audio tapes over Respondent's objections. The original recordings made from the aid transmitter, i.e., the one-way body transmitter, were neither offered nor admitted in evidence. Respondent, on review by this Tribunal, contends that a proper predicate for the admission of the above tapes was not laid in that proper identification of the individuals whose voices were recorded was not specifically made [6] and that there is no evidence that the operator of the tape recorder was competent to operate such a device. In Seymour v. Gillespie , the Texas Supreme Court adopted the seven-prong approach to the admissibility of audio recordings. In order for a tape recording to be admissible, the offeror must show or establish: (1) that the recording device was capable of taking testimony; (2) that the operator of the device was competent; (3) the authenticity of the correctness of the recording; (4) that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; (5) the manner of the preservation of the recording; (6) the identification of the speakers; and (7) that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement. Seymour v. Gillespie, 608 S.W.2d 897, 898 (Tex.1980); see also Cummings v. Jess Edwards, Inc., 445 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Interest of T.L.H., 630 S.W.2d 441, 447 (Tex.Civ. App.Corpus Christi 1982, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Moreover, the trial court may infer some of the above elements, and therefore, the proponent need not establish each of them in detail. Seymour v. Gillespie, 608 S.W.2d at 897; see also Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). When a proper predicate is laid and there are no fundamental problems, the trial court can, in its discretion, admit tape recordings into evidence. See In re Bates, 555 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Tex.1977); Drake v. State, 488 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The record in the instant case shows that, at the hearing before the Special Master, the Examiner attempted to lay the predicate for the admission of the cassette tapes into evidence through the testimony of Chief Investigator Mares. Investigator Mares described the Nagra SNS recorder and the number of times it had been used and rated its quality for recording sound as very good. Investigator Mares also testified that he was competent and knew how to operate the device and that Hollis Mathews was also competent to operate the recorder. Investigator Mares further testified that he had listened to the recordings and that they had fine quality sound and appeared to be correct and authentic recordings. As to the preservation of the recordings, the record shows that Investigator Mares testified that there are no indications that the recordings had been tampered with or altered, that there was no reasonable opportunity for others to tamper with them, and that the recordings had been in his office since the time he took possession of them from Hollis Mathews. Finally, Investigator Mares testified that he could personally identify the speakers on the tapes and he described characteristics of the voices and how each might be distinguished; he further testified that the statements on the recordings were made voluntarily. We find the above testimony of Investigator Mares sufficient to establish the admissibility into evidence of the duplicate audio cassette tapes to the same extent as the original Nagra SNS recordings. See TEX. R.CIV.EVID. 1003. Additionally, in considering Respondent's assertion that there is no evidence that the operator of the tape recorder was competent to operate such a device, we have considered only the evidence tending to support the Commission's findings and have disregarded all evidence and inferences to the contrary, and conclude that there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the questioned finding. Respondent's no evidence point fails, and Point of Error No. One is overruled in its entirety. In Point of Error No. Two, Respondent complains of the admission into evidence of the written excerpts from the audio tapes. The general rule is that a transcript made from a recording or re-recording is obviously not an original, and because it is the product of human agency it is not a duplicate, as those terms are defined in Rules 1001(3) and (4) of the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence. [7] Consequently, we hold the Special Master erred in admitting the written excerpts, having previously admitted the audio tapes themselves. However, we find the error in admitting the written excerpts of the recordings into evidence to be harmless. See Tex.R.App.P. 81(b). The record in the instant case clearly shows that the Special Master listened to the entirety of each of the audio tapes previously admitted into evidence, paying special attention to context and audibility. The substance of the written excerpts is completely contained in the audio tapes themselves; therefore, the written excerpts are merely cumulative of the evidence previously considered by the Special Master. Accordingly, Respondent's Point of Error No. Two is overruled.