Opinion ID: 151087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State's Rebuttal

Text: In rebuttal, the State called Officers Grant and Major. Officer Grant denied striking Hall or kicking his chair. Officer Major testified that during Hall's questioning, Hall never stated he was on the phone with anyone at the time the crimes occurred. Hall initially said he did not do it, and then later he confessed. Officer Major did not believe Hall's alibi because after Hall had confessed and was leading the officers to search for the guns later that same evening, the police and Hall went by Hall's house and Hall's mother ran to [the police car in which Hall was sitting] and said don't say anything else[,] you was on the telephone. Then John [Cartas] came in a couple of days later telling us that he was on the phone with [Hall] . . . . And [Cartas] told me that [Hall]'s parents told him to come down there. Officer Major denied reading Leak's statement to Hall before Hall confessed and said Leak's statement had not even been transcribed yet at that time. Officer Major denied threatening Hall. The State also called Charles Chambers, a records custodian for BellSouth. Chambers testified that his department handles subpoenas for records from BellSouth. Chambers testified that incoming call[] daily information is kept for about 60 days, while outgoing call information is kept longer than that, somewhere in the range of eighteen months or so, for billing purposes in case of discrepancies and complaints. Chambers made no distinction between records kept for local calls and records kept for long distance calls. [19] Chambers testified that BellSouth received several subpoenas for call records in connection with Hall's trial. First, BellSouth was subpoenaed on May 9, 2000 for the records in reference to Bonnie Hall's telephone account (XXX-XXX-XXXX). The subpoena requested information on incoming and outgoing calls on October 15, 1999. Chambers testified that he could not say whether there were incoming calls to the account on October 15, 1999, because at the time the subpoena was received there were no longer any records of those calls. Chambers testified that as for outgoing calls, [b]ased upon our records, there were no outgoing calls found between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on October 15, 1999 from the Hall residence and, therefore, there were no calls between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. from Hall to Ann Cartas's line or Charles Hutchinson's line. Chambers testified that BellSouth also received a subpoena for all phone records including incoming and outgoing [calls] for Ann Cartas's account (XXX-XXX-XXXX) on October 15, 1999. Chambers again testified there were no records available of incoming calls for that date. Chambers testified that there were no outgoing calls from the Cartas home on the 15th: Q. Let's talk about the outgoing calls from the Cartas home on the 15th. Was there an outgoing call for 281-1870 between the hours of four p.m. and six p.m.? A. No. Q. There was no phone call from the Cartas home to the telephone number of Darryl Hall 284-1968 between four and six p.m.; is that correct? A. That is correct. Chambers also testified as to BellSouth's response to a subpoena for records in connection with the account of Charles Hutchinson, at the home of Quinton Armstrong. That subpoena requested [a]ny and all phone records including incoming and outgoing calls to phone number XXX-XXX-XXXX on the date of 10-15-99. Chambers testified that as to Hutchinson's account, there were some . . . outgoing calls on October 15th, but there were no outgoing calls from Hutchinson's home to Hall's home. Chambers testified that, as with the other accounts, there was no information available as to any incoming calls for the Hutchinson account. On cross-examination, Chambers clarified that he was referring to both local and long distance calls when he said outgoing calls. Chambers further testified that outgoing call records were kept for all customers with any type of service, even those who are not billed specifically for outgoing calls. On cross-examination of Chambers, Hall's trial counsel Smedley pointed out that Chambers was saying there were no records of any outgoing calls, from any of the multiple accounts at issue, for the entire day of October 15, 1999: [20] Q. So what you're saying is that for October 15th for an entire day that no calls were made from each of those residences? A. No, I am not saying that. I am saying we have no record of those of any calls for those days. Q. But if you have no record for those calls and you say you keep up with the calls and your letter says that no calls were found for October 15th of 1999, are you not saying that nobody made a phone call? A. Are you talking about incoming or outgoing calls? Q. Either. A. If the records do not find the information, yes, I would say that information is not there for that period for that day, yes. Q. So for a whole day on October 15th of 1999, out of all those subpoenas that [the State's attorney] went over with you, nobody from any of those homes picked up their phone and made a phone call at all that whole day? A. Our records show no outgoing calls for those dates. Q. Okay. Would your records show if numbers had been disconnected? A. If the telephone number had been disconnected? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. So all of these people would have active service, and nobody made a call at all? Nobody picked up their phone to call anyone from twelve o'clock . . . Q. From twelve o'clock a.m. toor twelve o'clock midnight, that's when October 15 would start, until 11:59 that night, nobody picked up their phone from any of those residences and made a phone call? Is that what you're saying? A. I am saying that our data shows no outgoing calls were made on that date, yes. Q. That's whether you have measured service or local service or any kind of service? A. Yes.