Opinion ID: 220344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Use of a Police Report to Refresh a Witness's Recollection

Text: Marrero also challenges the district court's overruling of his objection to the Government's use of a search warrant tabulation report to refresh the recollection of a witness, Officer Danielle Brennan. Marrero argues that the court erred by allowing Officer Brennan to refresh her recollection with the report because it was not made by her, nor was it adopted by her. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's evidentiary rulings. United States v. Wagner, 382 F.3d 598, 616 (6th Cir.2004). That is, we will overturn a ruling on the admissibility of evidence only if the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors[,] ... improperly applie[d] the law[,] or use[d] an erroneous legal standard. United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715, 720 (6th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, [r]eversal is appropriate only if the abuse [of discretion] was not harmless error, that is, only if the erroneous evidentiary ruling affected the outcome of the trial. United States v. Vasilakos, 508 F.3d 401, 406 (6th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes a party to refresh a witness's memory with a writing so long as the adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. Fed.R.Evid. 612. By its terms, Rule 612 does not limit the type of writings that might be used as refreshers, and [t]he propriety of permitting a witness to refresh his memory from a writing prepared by another largely lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Rush v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 399 F.3d 705, 716 (6th Cir.2005). The fact that the warrant tabulation report was prepared by a person other than Officer Brennan does not establish that the district court abused its discretion by allowing her to refresh her recollection with it. Furthermore, even if the district court erred by allowing Officer Brennan to refresh her recollection with the warrant tabulation report, any error is harmless. Officer Brennan's refreshed testimony concerned where police had located the crack cocaine in the laundry room of the apartment complex. Specifically, she testified that the officers at the scene had found the crack cocaine in [t]he far right washing machine. At trial, the Government presented testimony of another officer, Trooper Chris Bush, that police recovered a quantity of crack cocaine from inside a washing machine in the laundry room. See Trial Tr. vol. 1, 120, May 28, 2009, ECF No. 54 ([I]n the first dryer there, I opened it up or the first washing machine, I opened it up and looked down inside and I observed to me [sic] a large amount of crack cocaine, what I believed to be crack cocaine.). Allowing Officer Brennan to confirm this testimony would be at most harmless error.