Opinion ID: 879881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Issue 6Disallowance of presenting a witness.

Text: Pease had made cassette recordings of telephone conversations between himself and the victim. While being held in Ravalli County jail, the tapes were taken away from him by the jailer. Pease wanted to use the tapes to show distress and suicidal tendencies of the victim and himself in developing his defense of duress and necessity. A witness to the taking of the tapes had been subpoenaed but was not allowed to testify. The testimony of the witness would have been irrelevant to the issue of revoking the suspended sentence. Both the testimony and the tapes would provide no more than cumulative evidence. Furthermore such evidence and testimony is not within the issues on appeal as they have very little, if anything, to do with the parole violation or the revocation of the suspended sentence. The trial court has discretion to determine admissibility of evidence and such action will not be reviewed except where its discretionary power has been manifestly abused. State v. Short (Mont. 1985), 702 P.2d 979, 983, 42 St.Rep. 1026, 1031 citing State v. Breitenstein (1979), 180 Mont. 503, 509, 591 P.2d 233, 236. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The tapes and testimony concerning the tapes were properly denied.