Opinion ID: 2518342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transcripts of Recorded Phone Conversation

Text: For his third claim of error, Overton argues that the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to use the transcript of the taped phone conversation between him and G.B. during its deliberations. While investigating G.B.'s allegations, Wichita detectives taped two telephone conversations between G.B. and Overton. These conversations were transcribed. At trial, the State played the taped conversations to the jury. In addition, the State provided the jurors with copies of the transcripts to use while they listened to the tapes. Because copies of the transcripts were not admitted as evidence, the transcripts were not given to the jurors. During deliberations, the jury requested use of the transcripts to help with clearing up some of the muffle on the tape. The trial court instructed the jurors that the transcripts themselves are not evidence. They are simply a tool to assist you. If you believe that the transcript is different from what you hear on the tape, the tape itself is controlling, then allowed the jury to use the transcripts during its deliberations. Overton first argues that the tape is unintelligible in places and the transcript improperly inserts words. Specifically, Overton states that the transcript includes the passage, Well you know I never raped you, even though the tape stated, Well you know I never fucked you. This argument is not supported by the record. The tape does not use the word fucked. We have previously stated that trial courts have wide discretion in determining whether to permit the jury to use transcripts as aids while listening to recordings. An appellate court reviews such a decision using an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Kraus, 271 Kan. 810, 812-15, 26 P.3d 636 (2001). In Kraus, the trial court allowed the State to play a CD-ROM which contained the audio recording of a conversation and a typed transcript of the conversation that could be displayed simultaneously on a computer screen. The jury listened to the audio portion while the typed version was displayed on the wall. The trial court instructed the jury that only the recorded voices could be considered as evidence and not the transcript. Assimilating cases from other jurisdictions, the Kraus court established six requirements for allowing the use of a transcript as an aid for understanding an audio or videotape: (1) [T]he audiotaped conversation is difficult to understand; (2) the transcript accurately reflects the conversation; (3) inaudible portions of the audiotaped conversation are recorded as `inaudible' on the transcript; (4) the trial court instructs the jury that the audiotape is not evidence and that the evidence is the audio recording itself; (5) the jury is not allowed to take the transcript with them into the jury room for deliberations; and (6) the transcript actually aids the jury in understanding the audiotaped conversation. 271 Kan. at 814. After applying these standards, the Kraus court upheld the jury's use of the transcript while the tape was played in court. 271 Kan. at 815. Here, the trial court went further and allowed the jury to use the transcript during deliberations. As a result, the trial court failed to follow the requirements set out by Kraus. We, therefore, must determine whether this error is harmless or whether it affirmatively prejudiced Overton's substantial rights. See State v. Kendall, 274 Kan. 1003, 1010, 58 P.3d 660 (2002). When determining whether a trial error is harmless, the appellate court must scrutinize the issue in light of the whole record, not by isolating each error. State v. Abu-Fakher, 274 Kan. 584, 613, 56 P.3d 166 (2002). Overton has failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the trial court's decision to allow the jury to use the transcript during deliberations. Accordingly, the trial court's error is harmless.