Opinion ID: 1959220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Duplicate Tape Recording

Text: The defendants' last argument is that a duplicate tape recording should not be admissible when the original recording is available. As subissues of their argument, the defendants argue that the admission of the duplicate tape recording violated the best evidence rule and that the recording was not properly authenticated. In their brief to this Court, the defendants state that the original tape recording was not admitted into evidence. However, our review of the record reveals that the original tape recording was admitted into evidence. The record contains the following dialogue between the trial court and Bentley's attorney: THE COURT: Now, you offer the tape, which is Number 1 and the transcript, which is number 1A. [Bentley's attorney]: Well, I want to offer the small tape as number 1. [The record reflects that Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence at this point.] THE COURT: Do it this way, then, rather than that. Do the small tape as 1. [Bentley's attorney]: All right. THE COURT: The large tape as 2, not 1A. [Bentley's attorney]: All right. THE COURT: And you want the transcript as 3? [Bentley's attorney]: That will be fine and better. [The record next reflects that Exhibits 2 and 3 were admitted into evidence at this point.] The defendants also offered a CD made by their expert witness from the duplicate tape; the offering of the CD into evidence appears in the record as follows: THE COURT: Well, we've got these exhibits you're offering Robert [defendants' attorney]. [Defendants' attorney]: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You're offering 2. [Defendants' attorney]: Yes, sir. I offered 1, 2, and 3. THE COURT: What was 3? [Defendants' attorney]: I thought the CD waswell, I said 3 when I was talking about the charts. My apologies. THE COURT: It's just two. [Defendants' attorney]: 1 and 2, yes, sir, the entire 1. THE COURT: The CD is in.... The record also shows that the trial court delivered all exhibits to the jury for its deliberation, and among the exhibits included in that record is the original microcassette tape recording, marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Also, the defendants acknowledge in their brief to this Court that a portion of the original recording was played for the jury; they state, however, that [o]nly a portion was played, and that was at least one day after there was an objection by [Defendants'] Counsel concerning certain discontinuities on the tape. Obviously, once the original microcassette recording was admitted into evidence as plaintiff's exhibit 1, and played partially for the jury, there was nothing to prevent the defendants during trial, or the jury during its deliberations, from playing it in its entirety. The jury had before it as trial exhibits three different recordingsthe original microcassette recording, the larger cassette that had been copied from the microcassette recording, and the CD made by the defendants' expert witness and a transcription of the contents of the larger cassette recording that it could compare to any of the recordings for inconsistencies and discontinuities and from which it could assign the appropriate weight to give the recordings, as it saw fit. See, e.g., Avery v. State, 589 So.2d 1313, 1315 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)(The fact that parts of a tape recording were inaudible would not affect the admissibility of the recording but the weight which the jury places on the evidence.). Thus, we conclude that there is no basis for the defendants' argument that the original recording was not admitted into evidence. The defendants argue that the admission of the duplicate recording violates the best evidence rule. However, our review of the record shows that the defendants failed to object to the admissibility of the duplicate recording on that ground. The only mention of an objection based on the best evidence rule was to the admissibility of the transcript of the recording. Moreover, Alabama's best evidence rule, Rule 1002, Ala. R. Evid., is not applicable to tape recordings. The Advisory Committee's notes to Rule 1001(1), Ala. R. Evid., which defines writings, state, in pertinent part: Alabama's best evidence rule continues applicable to writings only. Adoption of this rule is a rejection of the corresponding federal rule, which expands the best evidence principle to cover recordings and photographs. See Fed.R.Evid. 1001(1). Chattels generally remain outside the scope of the best evidence principle. See Jones v. Pizza Boy, Oxford, Inc., 387 So.2d 819 (Ala.1980). Tape recordings, for example, present no best evidence issue. O'Daniel v. O'Daniel, 515 So.2d 1248 (Ala.Civ.App.), rev'd, 515 So.2d 1250 (Ala.1987)(holding re-recording of taped conversation admissible without accounting for unavailability of the original tape). See C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 212.01 (4th ed.1991). See also Ex parte O'Daniel, 515 So.2d 1250 (Ala.1987), and Withee v. State, 728 So.2d 684 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). The defendants further contend that Bentley failed to properly authenticate the recording. Before the recording was played to the jury, Bentley testified as to the identification of the voices on the tape. The trial court then further questioned Bentley as follows: THE COURT: Mr. Bentley, did you make this recording yourself? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: After you made the recording, what did you do with the tape? THE WITNESS: I took it to my attorney's office. THE COURT: That attorney being who? THE WITNESS: That being Buck [Bentley's attorney]:Watson. THE WITNESS:Watson. I couldn't think of it. Buck Watson in Huntsville, Alabama. THE COURT: Do you know what he did with the tape? THE WITNESS: He told me that he transcribed it. We played it in his office. THE COURT: You did? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: What happened to the tape after you gave it to Mr. Watson, if you know. THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Watson wanted toI don't know what the term is, but wanted to enjoin [sic] a Birmingham law firm, and that was Mr. Dauphin [Bentley's attorney]. And they forwarded the tape here and the transcript. THE COURT: Are you going to be able to tie up the tape? [Bentley's attorney]: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. With that condition, what I'm going to do, ladies and gentlemen, is let you hear the tape. And there's been a transcription made by Mr. Dauphin's office that reportedly reflects what you will hear on the tape. Now we've been listening to the tape and looking at the transcript. You and you alone, though, are the sole and exclusive judges of what you hear on the tape and what you see on the transcription and whether or not they are one and the same. This goesand you will be the judges as to the credibility and to what weight you want to give this testimony. But I'm going to give you ladies and gentlemen an opportunity to hear it. So go ahead. Pass out your transcripts. Counsel for the defendants then renewed a previous objection to the admission of the tape recording into evidence. Bentley further testified, in response to questions from his attorney, as follows: Q.... Mr. Bentley, you have listened to the tape and listened to theand compared it to the transcription. A. Yes. Q. And is both the tape and the transcription an accurate recording of the conversation that you had with Mr. Byrd? A. It's an exact recording. Rule 901, Ala. R. Evid., deals with the Requirement of Authentication or Identification. Rule 901(a) states that [t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. The Advisory Committee's notes further state, in pertinent part: The question of authenticity or proper identification is, in the first instance, for the trial judge as a preliminary matter. See Ala. R. Evid. 104(a). The required foundational showing must consist of evidence `sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.' The evidence of authentication or identification, as under prior Alabama practice, does not have to be conclusive or overwhelming; rather it must be strong enough for the question to go to the jury. Any weaknesses in the foundational showing, insufficient to call for exclusion, go to the weight that the trier of fact is to give the evidence. See Tidwell v. State, 496 So.2d 109 (Ala. Crim.App.1986). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the required foundational showing was made to allow for the proper admission of the recording. Any weakness in that showing was subject to the jury's determination of the evidentiary weight to give the recording. Tidwell v. State, 496 So.2d 109 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED. MOORE, C.J., and SEE, BROWN, and STUART, JJ., concur.