Opinion ID: 864646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Thompson's Testimony

Text: ¶20. Easter contends that the trial court committed reversible error by stating to Thompson during his direct examination by the State, Let's just get on to this transaction, please. It 9 is necessary to examine the comment in the proper context. The record reflects the following exchange: State: Chris, if we can back up a little bit. But how did all this come about? How did you know you were supposed to meet him? Thompson: I had talked to him on the phone. State: Okay. When did you talk to him? Thompson: Around lunch. State: Okay. And who was present when you made that phone call? Thompson: Neil Grogan and Alan Ward. State: And do you remember where you were? Thompson: At the MBN office. State: And during that conversation around noon, tell us a little be about what happened, what the conversation was about. Thompson: He said he couldn't -- wasn't able to get in touch with me and my phone had been messed up. He asked about some other transactions that we – Defense: Objection. We need to be heard outside the presence of the jury. The Court: All right. Sustained. Let's just get on to this transaction, please. State: Chris, just dealing with this particular transaction, did you and Mr. Easter agree to meet somewhere? Thompson: Yes. State: And where was that? Thompson: At the Apple store on Highway 19 South. State: And did you -- what did you talk about doing at the Apple store? Thompson: Trading some money for cocaine. (emphasis added). ¶21. Clearly, Thompson was already testifying as to the transaction in question that involved Thompson working with MBN as a confidential informant to arrange an exchange with Easter. The trial court's comment was an immediate response to the defense's objection to Thompson discussing other transactions he had with Easter. The trial court's comment was made to instruct Thompson to testify only as to the transaction in question. Obviously, 10 the jury was aware that the State had alleged that a transaction of cocaine for money had occurred. The trial court only acted to limit testimony to one transaction in question. The trial court did not offer a finding that a drug deal had definitely occurred. We find that this issue is without merit. ¶22. Next, Easter contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it commented on the quality of the tape recording of the telephone conversation. The trial court, outside the presence of the jury, played the tape recording of the two telephone conversations before allowing the tape to be played to the jury. The record reflects that the defense's objection to the tape of the telephone conversation was to exclude the introductory part of the recording as the first part of the tape is going to get into 404 (b) activity.1 ¶23. The trial court ordered the deletion of the introduction part of the conversation before the tapes could be played to the jury. The trial court also commented on the poor quality of the tape outside the presence of the jury. The trial court found that the tape was offered to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, and under M.R.E. 403, the tape was certainly relevant and more probative than prejudicial. 1 M.R.E. 404 (b) provides: (b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 11 ¶24. It is after the conference outside the presence of the jury that the alleged error occurred when the jury was brought back into the courtroom and Thompson resumed his testimony. The record reflects the following transpired: The Court: Mr. White, you want to bring the jury in, please. (THE JURY RETURNED TO THE COURTROOM AT 10:05 A.M., AND THE PROCEEDINGS RESUMED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:) The Court: Ms. Heidelberg [State], you may proceed. State: Yes, sir. Judge, at this time, we'd like to play the tape for the jury, please.... The Court: Yes, sir. (AUDIOTAPE BEING PLAYED FOR THE JURY.) State: Okay. Chris, let me ask you just a few questions about that. What exactly was that that the jury just heard? Thompson: It's a conversation between me and Baron. State: Okay. And I notice that you didn't call him Baron. What did you call him when you placed the phone call? Thompson: B. State: Okay. And you didn't identify yourself -- well, how did you identify yourself? Thompson: As C. State: Okay. So what does B stand for? Thompson: Baron. State: And C stands for? Thompson: Chris. State: Okay. You didn't hold a conversation with him -- a drug-related conversation with him during that particular phone call, and why not? What happened? Thompson: He wanted to call me back. For whatever reason I don't know. State: Okay. And did he call you back? Thompson: Yes... State: Judge, if we may proceed with the telephone call that was placed back to Chris. The Court: Okay. (AUDIOTAPE BEING PLAYED FOR THE JURY.) State: And, Chris, during that conversation when Mr. Easter called you back, did you all discuss -- well, what did you discuss at that particular time? Defense: Objection, your Honor. Under the Best Evidence Rule, the tape speaks for itself. For this witness to then interpret his 12 understanding of the tape is improper bolstering. They've entered this into evidence, and the jury's free to examine it at their leisure and give it whatever weight and credibility they determine, but this is improper. The Court: All right. Your objection's going to be overruled. The quality is not that great. This witness will be subject to crossexamination. He was part of the conversation, so I'll allow you to ask him questions about the contents of that tape.... The Court: You may answer the question. (emphasis added). ¶25. In Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116, 119 (Miss. 1993), this Court stated: Certainly a tape recording of the alleged drug transaction is relevant. See Miss. R. Evid. 401. The tape's admission makes the drug transaction more likely to have taken place. See Butler, 592 So.2d at 984. ¶26. Tape recordings may be received into evidence as long as the proper predicate has been established. Middlebrook v. State, 555 So.2d 1009, 1012 (Miss. 1990). The mere fact that portions of a recording are unintelligible does not by itself render the recording inadmissible. Middlebrook, 555 So.2d at 1012; Frank v. State, 749 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). See also Oatis v. State, 726 So.2d 1230, 1235 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). Transcripts provided to the jury to follow along with the tape recording have also been allowed. See Frank, 749 So.2d at 1243 (transcripts can be used to assist the jury in determining who is speaking and discerning what is being said). ¶27. This Court finds that the trial court's comment did not indicate its leaning toward the State's witness nor was it likely to influence the jury's verdict. This issue is without merit.