Opinion ID: 2640657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Investigator's interview with Carter

Text: The district court allowed the State to play enough of a taped interview with Carter to confirm the victim's allegation that a sexual encounter occurred. Carter contends that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the remaining portions of the interview because the entire tape was the best evidence [24] of the conversation. Carter failed to challenge the district court's exclusion of the tape on best evidence grounds. Accordingly, Carter failed to properly preserve this issue for appeal, and the issue is waived. [25] Additionally, the best evidence rule is not implicated by the testimony concerning the interview. [26] At trial, the State lodged a timely hearsay objection to the remainder of the interview. [27] The State argued that Carter should not be allowed to present or elaborate upon his substantive version of events through his own hearsay statement. Carter argued in turn that the tape was admissible under exceptions to the rule against admission of hearsay, i.e., as a statement against interest, [28] as a prior inconsistent statement of the police witness who conducted the interview, [29] and as a statement of Carter's then-existing mental or emotional or physical condition. [30] The district court found that Carter's taped statements, which mentioned possible drug use, were not incriminating, and found no inconsistencies between the testimony of the witness and statements on the tape. Finally, the district court determined that the statements were made some months after the alleged sexual assault and, thus, could not be admitted under the exception for statements of a defendant's then-existing mental, emotional or physical condition. All of these findings were supported by substantial evidence. We therefore conclude that the district court properly excluded the tape on hearsay grounds. [31]