Opinion ID: 1093210
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in failing to sustain appellant's objection to the admission of the tape recording of a conversation between himself and his wife made on the morning of july 3, 1986, and further did the trial court err in refusing to grant appellant's motion for mistrial?

Text: A trial judge has broad discretion as to the admission of evidence and unless he so abuses his discretion as to be prejudicial to the accused, his decision will not be reversed. Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824 (Miss. 1982). See also Dye v. State, 498 So.2d 343 (Miss. 1986). In Sparks v. State, 412 So.2d 754 (Miss. 1982), this Court held that before a sound recording may be admitted into evidence, the following factors must be established: 1. That the recording device was capable of taking testimony; 2. That the operator was competent; 3. That the recording is authentic and correct; 4. That there have been no changes, additions or deletions made to the tape; 5. The manner of preservation; 6. The identity of the speakers; 7. That the tape was voluntarily made. See generally, 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence, § 436 (1976). During the trial Judy Monk testified that the tape recorder was working and capable of recording, that the tape recording was authentic, that she was competent to work the recorder, that there had been no deletions, additions or changes made and that the voices on the tape were of her, Rose and Monk. All of those involved in the chain of custody also testified that no changes or alterations had been made to the tape. Sheriff Glen Warren, who was the last to be in possession of the tape, testified that he kept the tape with him until the trial. He also testified that the male voice was that of Monk. The trial judge deleted a portion of the tape he found to be prejudicial and not probative. This deletion, however, in no way affected the admissibility of the recording. See Williamson v. State, 512 So.2d 868 (Miss. 1987). Prior to having the tape played for the jury, the trial judge instructed the jury to place on the recording as an exhibit whatever value you deem it to have. A similar cautionary instruction was given in Dye v. State, supra . All the requisite factors for the admissibility of tape recordings were met and, therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for mistrial was properly overruled.