Opinion ID: 1338695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admissibility of entire taped conversations

Text: Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider the acts or declarations of Miller in determining whether a conspiracy existed when Miller refused to testify at trial as to such acts or declarations and when such acts or declarations were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy. The state maintains that Miller's portions of the recorded conversations with the appellant were not admissible as proof of the truth of the matter asserted, but only to explain and give context to the admissions of the appellant. [8] First, it is undisputed between the parties on appeal that the appellant's recorded statements were properly admitted at trial pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A). [9] Thus the resolution of this issue centers only upon whether Miller's recorded statements were hearsay and therefore improperly admitted. [10] West Virginia Rule of Evidence 801(C) defines hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Consequently, if a statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted but for some other purpose, it is not hearsay and therefore it is admissible. See Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Maynard, 183 W.Va. 1, 393 S.E.2d 221 (1990). In the case of United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77 (5th Cir.1988), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether a co-conspirator's taped statements made after the co-conspirator agreed to assist the police were admissible at trial. Id. at 78. The court held that while the statements were not admissible as those of a co-conspirator the statements are admissible at least as `reciprocal and integrated utterance(s)' between the two parties, U.S. v. Metcalf, 430 F.2d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir.1970), for the limited purpose of putting the responses of the appellant in context and making them `intelligible to the jury and recognizable as admissions.' Gutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d at 81 (quoting U.S. v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989, 94 S.Ct. 1586, 1587, 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974)); see also United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir.1990). Additionally, in United States v. Davis, 890 F.2d 1373, 1379-80 (7th Cir.1989) the court found that the defendant's right to confront witnesses was not violated when the trial court admitted tape-recorded conversations between the defendant and a government informant who was not called to testify at the defendant's trial for extortion and racketeering. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the government informant's portion of the taped conversation was admissible since his statements were necessary to place the defendant's statements in a proper context. Id. at 1380 (citing Gutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d at 81; United States v. Jordan, 810 F.2d 262, 264 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1032, 107 S.Ct. 1963, 95 L.Ed.2d 535 (1987); United States v. Price, 792 F.2d 994, 996-97 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Whitman, 771 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir.1985)). The Davis court also found that the admission of the informant's statements did not implicate the defendant's right to confront the witness since the tape recorded statements were admitted for the limited purpose of placing ... [the defendant's] statements in context. Davis, 890 F.2d at 1380. Upon review of the record in this case, we conclude that Miller's tape-recorded statements were not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted or as substantive evidence of the conspiracy as alleged, but were being offered solely to place the appellant's statements in context and make them comprehensible for the jury. Therefore, the admission of these statements for this limited purpose did not implicate the appellant's sixth amendment right to confront witnesses. We therefore find no error was committed by the lower court. Based upon the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Wood County is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.