Opinion ID: 749852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the admission of taped conversations into evidence

Text: 17 The fourth contention that Pope raises is that the district court erred in allowing the jury to hear two audiotapes which contained admissions by Pope that he had committed the crimes with which he was charged in the indictment. Pope contends that the jury should not have had the opportunity to hear the tapes because inaudible sections of the tapes render them unreliable. 18 The district court is required to exclude a recording only if the inaudible or unintelligible portions are so substantial as to render the whole recording untrustworthy. United States v. Sutherland, 656 F.2d 1181, 1200 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept.1981); accord Sherman v. Burke Contracting, Inc., 891 F.2d 1527, 1533 (11th Cir.1990). This determination of reliability is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. See id. After reviewing the tapes, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the tapes were sufficiently complete to be reliable. Consequently, Pope's challenge to the admission of the audiotapes fails. 19 E. THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW POPE IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ON DATES NEAR THAT MENTIONED IN THE INDICTMENT 20 The final contention Pope raises on appeal is that because the indictment only mentions Pope having possession of a firearm on or about October 7, 1994, evidence tending to show that he possessed a firearm on other dates close in time to October 7 constitute other acts evidence which should have been excluded under Rule 404(b). However, the indictment charges that the illegal conduct occurred on or about October 7, 1994, and time is not an essential element of the offense, so long as the government establishes that the conduct occurred reasonably near the date that the indictment mentions. See, e.g., United States v. Champion, 813 F.2d 1154, 1168 (11th Cir.1987) ([P]roof of a date reasonably near to the specified date is sufficient.); Russell v. United States, 429 F.2d 237, 238 (5th Cir.1970) ([T]he time of the offense is not an essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and, 'within reasonable limits, proof of any date before the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations is sufficient.' ) (citation omitted). 21 In this case, the district court admitted evidence tending to show that Pope illegally possessed firearms on September 17, 1994 and October 4, 1994. These dates are reasonably near to October 7, 1994 so as to be on or about that date. The evidence that Pope contends was admitted in error was direct evidence of Pope's guilt with respect to the crimes charged in the indictment and therefore it did not fall within Rule 404(b).