Opinion ID: 1791567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Audio Recordings.

Text: ¶ 22. To be admitted into evidence, an audio recording must meet the requirements of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901. Doby v. State, 557 So.2d 533, 541 (Miss.1990). In order to properly admit the tape into evidence, it must be authenticated under Rule 901(a) and must be relevant under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 401. Middlebrook v. State, 555 So.2d 1009, 1011-12 (Miss.1990). According to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5): Voice Identification. Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker. ¶ 23. The relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused. Unless the trial judge's discretion is so abused as to be prejudicial to a party, this Court will not reverse his ruling. Stewart v. Stewart, 645 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Miss.1994) (quoting Century 21 Deep South Props., Ltd. v. Corson, 612 So.2d 359, 369 (Miss.1992)); see also Rushing v. Rushing, 724 So.2d 911, 914 (Miss.1998). The question of whether the evidence presented satisfies Mississippi Rules of Evidence 401 and 901 is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Miss. R. Evid. 104(a). ¶ 24. Failure to make a contemporaneous objection constitutes waiver of the objection and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because the trial court is denied the opportunity to consider the issue and possibly remedy the situation. De La Beckwith v. State, 707 So.2d 547, 574 (Miss.1997). Furthermore, when a party makes an objection on specific grounds, it is considered a waiver regarding all other grounds. Burns v. State, 729 So.2d 203, 219 (Miss.1998). ¶ 25. In the case sub judice, Kelly alleges error due to the fact that Mike Blackwell's voice was never identified on the tapes. However, the only objection to the tape recordings prior to their submission into evidence was related to a chain of custody issue  Kelly contended that if it were shown that the tapes had not been tampered with, that there was no objection. In regard to chain of custody, Judge Bise ruled that there was no break in the chain of custody, and the tapes should be admitted. [12] Further, the trial court found that the tape recordings were relevant, there was sufficient testimony on which to find that the tapes fairly and accurately depicted the conversations which Kelly had, and that they had not been tampered with. Kelly failed to object contemporaneously in regard to identification of the voices on the tape at the time the tapes were admitted into evidence. Consequently, Kelly waived her objection and, thus, is procedurally barred from raising this issue for the first time on appeal. ¶ 26. Notwithstanding this procedural bar, Kelly argues that it was improper for Judge Bise to examine Greg Copeland on the stand regarding the identification of the voices on the tapes. After the examination by the trial court, Kelly, for the first time, objected to the trial court's examination, claiming that the voices on the tape were never identified. This objection was made well after the tapes had already been admitted into evidence. Both parties were given the opportunity at the close of the case to brief the court with regard to Kelly's objection to the court's examination of Greg, but both failed to do the same. ¶ 27. According to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 614(b), [t]he Court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or a party. See generally Rushing, 724 So.2d 911. However, it is grounds for reversal if the trial judge abuses the authority to call or question a witness abandoning his impartial position as a judge and assuming an adversarial role. Powell v. Ayars, 792 So.2d 240, 248 (Miss.2001) (citing West v. State, 519 So.2d 418, 422-24 (Miss.1988)); see Layne v. State, 542 So.2d 237, 242 (Miss.1989) (trial courts must honor the line between detachment and advocacy). The powers of a chancellor to question witnesses are much broader than those of circuit judges. Griffin v. State, 171 Miss. 70, 70, 156 So. 652, 653 (1934). ¶ 28. Though judicial participation in trial proceedings carries inherent risks, there is no requirement for the trial judge solely to be a silent observer. Bumpus v. State, 166 Miss. 276, 281-82, 144 So. 897, 899 (1932); see generally Burnett v. State, 204 Miss. 280, 37 So.2d 310 (1948) (trial court's examination of witnesses, which probably served only to strengthen the state's case was improper, but harmless in view of defendant's manifest guilt). ¶ 29. Notwithstanding the procedural bar for failing to object contemporaneously at the time of admission of the tapes, we find that Judge Bise did not abuse his discretion by examining Greg on the stand. Consequently, Kelly's assignment of error on this issue is devoid of any merit.