Opinion ID: 488727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Recorded Conversations Referring to Other Events

Text: 35 The government played tapes and provided transcripts to the jury of conversations recorded with Christiansen's consent that took place on December 13, 1984, between Christiansen and Munson. Munson argues that the trial court erred by allowing this evidence to be admitted. The specific passages to which he now objects established, according to him, that: 36 (1) Christiansen made other trips to Munson's home to pick up cocaine; 37 (2) Munson had a car load ready to drive to Maine; 38 (3) Christiansen owed Munson $33,200; 39 (4) Before Grenier was killed he had paid off his debt to Munson for the purchase of narcotics; 40 (5) Munson was writing off a debt owed to him by Christiansen; 41 (6) Munson was to have been arrested a year earlier; 42 (7) Grenier's killers would get what they deserved; and 43 (8) Munson was ready to break heads over Grenier's death. 44 When offering these tapes and transcripts as evidence, the government discussed in general terms the purposes they would serve. Of the passages to which Munson now objects, the government specifically addressed only those regarding debts Christiansen and Grenier owed to Munson. Munson's counsel, who reviewed the tapes and transcripts prior to trial and concurred in the editing of them, did not object to any specific statements. He objected generally to the introduction of the tapes and transcripts and the acts referred to in them on various grounds, including that they were impermissible evidence of other wrongful acts, and were confusing, inaccurate, irrelevant, prejudicial, and unnecessarily cumulative. The district court ruled that [a]ll of the statements of the defendant constitute admissions. All of them are offered by the government as evidence in support of the government's contentions with respect to the whereabouts, the residence, the associations of this defendant. The court said the statements were not unnecessarily cumulative because they appeared to be corroborative of Pierce's and Christiansen's testimony. In light of defense counsel's failure to alert the trial court to specific objections and his concurrence in the editing of the tapes and transcripts, we will review only for plain error. 45 We find nothing even approaching plain error in the admission of these recorded statements. Munson's argument is that the court should have excluded them under Rule 404(b) as evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts used to prove Munson's character in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. All eight passages, however, are subject to various interpretations. Only the first two appear to be evidence of other wrongful acts. The other trips Christiansen made apparently took place in 1983 and could be relevant to the intent of Christiansen to conspire with Munson in the 1983 transactions. If so, they would be admissible under Rule 404(b), to show motive, intent, and knowledge. Because the car load statement was made in December 1984 it obviously does not refer to the transactions for which Munson was charged. But this reference to a car load is too vague to raise serious concerns about prejudice to Munson. The three comments regarding debts may not be evidence of other acts at all. The government contended that Munson was involved with Grenier and Christiansen in distributing cocaine. The debts about which Munson spoke may at least partly have been due to the transactions for which Munson was charged. As such they would be admissions by Munson and admissible as nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(2). The same can be said about the comment that an arrest was to have been made; this may refer to one of the 1983 transactions and also be an admission. 46 If specific objections had been made, the court would have had an opportunity to clear up the ambiguity about these comments. Having failed to do so, Munson cannot now use the ambiguity as a basis for assigning error. We find nothing so prejudicial in any of the eight comments, including the two references to Munson's reaction to Grenier's death, as to constitute plain error.