Opinion ID: 1926615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: transcripts as duplicate originals of tape recordings

Text: A slightly different situation was presented when the State attempted to introduce a transcription of Mary Scott's tape recorded confession with certain portions having been deleted by the State. The State argued that the transcription of Mary Scott's tape recorded statement, with the deletions, could be received into evidence as a duplicate of her tape recorded statement. The Court's specific ruling was as follows: THE COURT: I have considered the objections as to the introduction of a duplicate of the statement with certain portions redacted by the state. I will take up separately any application for other portions of the document to be introduced into evidence and I will allow the State to introduce a duplicate in lieu of the original.... THE COURT: ... the witness has already testified that it accurately reflects the substance of her statement. Once again, the State had the option of proving Mary Scott's confession through her trial testimony or by introducing the tape recorded statement. However, the State could not prove the statement by a transcript of the recorded statement even though the witness vouched for the accuracy of the transcript. If the State elected to prove the statement by the tape recording, it was obligated to introduce the original recording, not a transcript into evidence. The transcript of the tape recorded statement could not be received into evidence as a duplicate. D.R.E. 1001(4) defines a duplicate as: A duplicate is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original or from the same matrix ... or by mechanical or electronic re-recording ... or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. To permit the edited transcript of Mary Scott's tape recorded statement to be received into evidence as a duplicate in lieu of the original tape recorded statement was contrary to D.R.E. 1001(4). Wright v. Farmer's Co-op of Arkansas and Oklahoma, 681 F.2d 549, 553, Note 3 (8th Cir. 1982).