Opinion ID: 2317934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Seventh Exception.

Text: During cross-examination by the State, the respondent testified that a record had been played to him in the office of Mr. Bird in Waterville. The respondent was then asked the following question: Whether it was your voice and Sahagian's voice that you heard when those records were heard when the records were played to you. Objection was taken on the ground that the line of inquiry was entirely improper and that the State was trying to introduce evidence in an indirect manner which cannot be introduced secondarily in this way. The attorney for the State informed the Court: I am at this stage introducing nothing. I am laying a foundation. The witness answered: It sounded like my voice. Whether the recordings should be introduced in evidence was a matter for determination when and if offered. We test the propriety of the ruling in light of the situation at the time the objection was taken. We do not consider the acts complained of in the Eighth Exception in passing upon the ruling in the Seventh Exception. The exception is overruled.