Opinion ID: 1060393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: admission of the transcript of sutton's pretrial statement into evidence

Text: Appellant Sutton contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce a transcript of his pretrial statement into evidence. We disagree. Initially, we note once again that [i]t is well established that trial courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and their rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. McLeod, 937 S.W.2d at 871. Detective Widener testified that he had interviewed Sutton at the Sevier County Sheriff's Department on February 25, 1992. Widener also testified that this interview had been electronically recorded. The State then introduced the audiotape of the interview and began playing the tape for the jury. After a few minutes, the trial court stopped the tape and asked the jurors whether they could understand the tape. The jurors indicated that they could not. During a subsequent jury out hearing, Widener testified that he was present when Sutton gave his statement, that he had heard Sutton's words, that he had previously listened to the tape and verified that the transcript of the tape was accurate. Widener testified that he had listened to the tape when it was in better shape than it was at trial and he had compared it to the transcript several times. Widener acknowledged that there were many instances in which the transcript indicated that a part of the tape was unintelligible. The trial court subsequently allowed the State to introduce the transcript into evidence. Sutton essentially argues that the transcript should not have been admitted because it was not accurate. This argument ignores the testimony of Widener that he heard Sutton give the statement, that he had reviewed the tape, that he had reviewed the transcript, and that he had determined that the transcript was accurate. The fact that the transcript contains numerous indications that a part of the tape was unintelligible does not mean that the transcript was inaccurate. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted this evidence. This issue has no merit.