Opinion ID: 1676925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admissibility of a tape recording

Text: At trial, Triple J and Herring called Billy Carter as an adverse witness and asked Carter if he had ever told Herring that Triple J and Herring would be the beneficiaries of any amount of money that the Carters gained as a result of the suit against the Chamberses. Carter replied that he did not recall making such a statement. Triple J and Herring then attempted to impeach Carter by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made during a taped telephone conversation. The telephone conversation that was recorded allegedly occurred over four and one half years after the event to which it related had taken place. Triple J and Herring allege that Herring taped a telephone conversation he had with Billy Carter in September 1990 that related to Triple J's agreement to purchase the stockyard company; that agreement had been entered in January 1986. Triple J and Herring allege that, during this conversation, Carter admitted that he had told Herring that he and Triple J would be the beneficiaries of any amount the Carters recovered on the claim against the Chamberses. Initially, Triple J and Herring offered an edited version of the original tape recording. Herring admitted that he had altered the original tape by erasing portions of it that he said were irrelevant. The trial court heard the recording outside the presence of the jury and gave opposing counsel an opportunity to object, as required. Wright v. State, 38 Ala.App. 64, 79 So.2d 66 (1954), cert. denied, 262 Ala. 420, 79 So.2d 74 (Ala.1955). The trial court then ruled that the tape was inadmissible in its altered form. See Ex parte Fuller, 620 So.2d 675 (Ala.1993) (clarifying requirements for admission of sound recording). Triple J and Herring then presented a tape that Herring contended was the original unedited tape recording. The trial court played this tape outside the presence of the jury and likewise held it inadmissible. Triple J challenges the trial court's rulings. We find no error in those rulings. Before extrinsic evidence may be used to establish a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a witness, a proper predicate must be laid. Ex parte Pope, 562 So.2d 131, 134 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841, 111 S.Ct. 118, 112 L.Ed.2d 87 (1990); White Consol. Indus. v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 617 So.2d 657 (Ala.1993) (clarifying the law regarding admissibility of prior inconsistent statements used to impeach). The record reveals that Triple J and Herring failed to lay a proper predicate to impeach Carter's testimony. Herring and Triple J made the following statements, attempting to lay a proper predicate: Q. [BY MR. HERRING:] And you never told me that I would be the beneficiary of any amount of money that you gained as a result of that suit against the Chamberses? A. [BY MR. CARTER:] I don't recall that statement. Q. You don't recall that statement? A. No. Because Triple J and Herring did not lay a proper predicate to impeach Carter's testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the tape recording offered for impeachment.