Opinion ID: 2291568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Identification of Defendant as Phone Caller

Text: Defendant also argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence testimony of one Fred Short who stated that he received a phone call from an unidentified person soliciting his help in killing that person's grandfather. Libby contends that the evidence should have been excluded because the State did not properly authenticate the identity of the caller. Under M.R.Evid. 901(b)(4) evidence can be authenticated if there is sufficient proof of its [a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances. Here the substance of the call was indeed distinctive. Short testified that the caller offered Short $1,000 to help him drown his grandfather. The caller also told Short that the drowning had to occur within one week or the caller would be written out of his grandfather's will and be forced to move from his grandfather's house. Defendant contends that the substance of the call was not sufficiently distinctive to qualify under Rule 901(b)(4) because four additional State witnesses also knew of the call's contents. Generally, the more persons who know the facts recited, the weaker is the force of the inference [that the evidence is sufficiently distinctive]. Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 901.2(4), at 392 (1987). The inference of distinctiveness here, however, may be buttressed by showing that in the circumstances the other persons with knowledge would probably not have [made the phone call]. Id. It is unlikely that any of the four State witnesses who also knew of the call's contents would have made the call. First, although defendant's girlfriend, Lisa Gilbert, knew of the call's contents, she could not personally have made the call because Short continually used the male pronoun he in referring to the unidentified caller. It was within the court's discretion to believe that Short was familiar enough with the sound of a male voice, as opposed to a female voice, to identify the caller as a male. See M.R.Evid. 901(b)(5). Second, the three other State witnesses familiar with the contents of the call were not likely to have been the caller because all three had themselves received and rejected similar solicitations from defendant. All three could personally identify defendant because he had approached them in person. All three testified that, as in the telephone solicitation of Short, defendant had requested their help in drowning his grandfather in the bathtub because defendant believed he would soon lose his inheritance and be forced to move out of his grandfather's house. Moreover, two of the witnesses, Ricky Lane and Andrew Wood, both testified that after rejecting defendant's offer to them, they gave him Fred Short's phone number. Short testified that he asked the caller how the caller got his name and was told that two friends of Short had provided it. Short understood the two friends to be Lane and Wood. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the call's substance and its surrounding circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony.