Opinion ID: 2602210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Audio Tape

Text: [¶ 17] We address the admissibility of the audio tape of the drug transaction because that issue will likely arise again in the event of a new trial. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. W.R.E. 403. The balancing test required by Rule 403 is assigned to the sound discretion of the trial court. Prindle v. State, 945 P.2d 1180, 1183 (Wyo.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998).  `Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.' Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000) (quoting [ Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 (Wyo.1986) ]). Stout v. State, 2001 WY 114, ¶ 7, 35 P.3d 1198, ¶ 7 (Wyo.2001). [¶ 18] [T]his Court [has] said that tape recordings of drug transactions are non-testimonial, and `should be made available for a jury's review as any other exhibit.' Warner v. State, 897 P.2d 472, 475 (Wyo.1995). Contreras v. State, 7 P.3d 917, 919 (Wyo.2000). The court has stated further a trial court's ruling permitting a jury to review the tapes should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.... In addition, the exercise of that discretion should be upheld so long as the audio recording is otherwise admissible, and where the state introduces something more than a minimal amount of other evidence of culpability. Id. (quoting Warner, 897 P.2d at 475). [¶ 19] Ms. Hensley objected to the tape of the controlled buy, arguing it violated the hearsay rule and her constitutional right to confront witnesses because the neighbors' and Mr. Wilkie's voices could be heard on the tape and they did not testify at trial. The trial court overruled the objection, concluding the tape was not offered to prove the matters asserted by the unavailable witnesses and was the best evidence of what was said that day by Ms. Hensley and Ms. Morris. [¶ 20] We conclude admission of the tape was within the trial court's broad discretion. Ms. Morris' eyewitness testimony and the DCI witnesses' testimony laid a proper foundation for the tape, assuring its trustworthiness. The informant explained how she had been equipped with the portable recording device by the DCI agents, and she described the transaction ... in detail. The DCI agent testified that he assisted in equipping the informant with the tape recorder; monitored the informant throughout the transaction; and retrieved the micro cassette from the informant after the transaction was completed. Admission is especially appropriate where a witness who heard the statements also testifies and the recording gives independent support to his testimony. U.S. v. Davis, 780 F.2d 838, 846 (10th Cir.1985), followed by, U.S. v. Hanif, 1 F.3d 998, 1002 (10th Cir.1993). The testimony from the informant and the DCI agent who monitored the transaction laid more than sufficient foundation to insure the trustworthiness and accuracy of the tape recordings. They were properly admitted into evidence .... Crisp v. State, 944 P.2d 1165, 1168 (Wyo.1997). The tape was difficult to understand and, consequently, may not have been of significant benefit to the state's case. Discerning what was said by Mr. Wilkie and the neighbors is difficult, but none of what was said by them appears to implicate Ms. Hensley in any criminal activity. The tape was relevant to the proceedings, and the trial court had the discretion to allow its admission. The tape was properly admitted and played for the jury. See Contreras, 7 P.3d at 919-20. [¶ 21] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.