Opinion ID: 889266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prejudicial error under Van Kirk.

Text: ¶ 17 The first step is to determine whether the claimed error is structural error or trial error. Structural errors are those that affect the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than an error in the trial process itself. Id. at ¶ 38. These errors undermine the fairness of the entire proceeding. Examples include errors in jury selection, total deprivation to right to counsel, and lack of an impartial judge. Id. at ¶ 38. These structural errors are presumptively prejudicial and are automatically reversible. In contrast, trial errors occur during the presentation of the case to the jury. Trial errors are amenable to qualitative assessment by a reviewing court for prejudicial impact. Id. at ¶ 40. Reichmand's alleged error is a trial error. It was an error occurring during the presentation of the case to the jury. ¶ 18 Because we have determined that the error in this case was a trial error, the next step in the Van Kirk analysis is to determine whether the error was prejudicial. When inadmissible evidence is introduced and the convicted person alleges prejudice, the burden shifts to the State. The State must then satisfy a two-part test. Id. at ¶¶ 43-44; State v. Peplow, 2001 MT 253, ¶¶ 46-47, 307 Mont. 172, 36 P.3d 922. First, the State must show that the fact-finder was presented with admissible evidence that proved the same facts as the tainted evidence proved.  Second, the State must demonstrate that the quality of the tainted evidence was such that there was no reasonable possibility that it might have contributed to the defendant's conviction. Van Kirk, ¶¶ 43-44 (emphasis in original). As we observed in Van Kirk, this new test is inarguably more restrictive than our previous overwhelming evidence test. [3] Id. at ¶ 43. ¶ 19 The audiotape recordings of two separate drug transactions, made by wiring a confidential informant, are inadmissible under Goetz and thus tainted. The recordings or portions of the recordings were played for the jury on three separate occasions during the trial. First, the State played the August 21, 2007 recording of the transaction during Agent David Clark's testimony. Second, the State played the recording of the August 24, 2007 transaction during the same direct examination of Agent Clark. Third, the State played the audiotape during rebuttal closing. Thus, the State will first need to show that it submitted relevant evidence to prove the same facts as were proved by these recordings, and then will need to show that the quality of the recordings was such that there was no reasonable possibility that they might have contributed to Reichmand's conviction. ¶ 20 The first recording contains audio of the confidential informant Chor entering the house, asking Is Dallas home? After a few seconds of silence, Chor asks the other person, You got six? He responds, Yeah, I got six. He then counts from one hundred, concluding with two hundred and ten. Chor can then be heard counting twenty dollar bills: One, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four, five. Two hundred. He then asks: And ten? Chor then presumably hands him the money, saying: Here you go, buddy. The rest of the tape seems to be small talk followed by Chor's exit from the house. ¶ 21 The second recording is of the August 24, 2007 transaction. One can hear Chor knock on the door, enter, and say: Dallas, do you have ten? To which the other person responds, Yeah. Chor responds: Ok, I'll take ten. After the two briefly struggle to get the math right, the other person eventually adds up the amount: Thirty-five and ten is three hundred and fifty. Chor counts in tens from forty, ending with three hundred and fifty. The other person can be heard saying, Man, you are good. Here, have a cigarette. Chor asks for a beverage, the other person briefly disappears out of the CI's microphone range, and then returns to count out one through ten (presumably doling out tablets of morphine). Chor says, Thank you very much. I'm out of here. ¶ 22 The jury heard the audio transcribed above during direct examination and during closing. Thus, we consider whether the fact-finder was presented with admissible evidence that proved these same facts. We conclude that the jury was presented with evidence that proved these same facts, through the testimony of Chor, the confidential informant. On direct examination, Chor testified that he set up the August 21, 2007 transaction, went to the residence, bought the pills, and returned to meet the Task Force at a predetermined location. Chor also testified that on August 24, 2007, he bought ten pills from Dallas. Chor's testimony was admissible and proved, generally, the same facts as the tainted evidence did. ¶ 23 We therefore move to the second inquiry under Van Kirk 's harmless error analysis: was the quality of the tainted evidence such that there was no reasonable possibility that it might have contributed to the defendant's conviction? Id. at ¶ 44. It is important here to note that the inquiry does not require us to definitively say whether or not the tainted evidence actually influenced the jury's decision to convict. Rather, the question is whether the State can show there is no reasonable possibility that the tainted evidence might have contributed to the conviction. As we stated in Van Kirk, and we reemphasize now, this is a very high bar. ¶ 24 The State's argument regarding this prong is brief and unpersuasive. The State admits that it used the recordings in response to Reichmand's defense of misidentification: The primary use of the recordings to refute this defense was to confirm Chor had used the name `Dallas' to refer to the supplier of the morphine tablets. (Emphasis added.) The recordings confirmed Chor's testimony, likely bolstering his credibility in the minds of the jurors. Given that the defense had turned a spotlight on Chor's potential ulterior motives, his shaky mental capacity, and his inability to remember parts of the transactions or names of officers he worked with, there is no doubt the recordings possibly influenced the outcome. The recordings provided the jurors with just what they needed in order to fully believe Chor: actual, objectively reliable recordings of everything that happened during both transactions. ¶ 25 The recordings also filled in chronological gaps in the testimony of the agents who, without the recordings, could only testify to how they prepared Chor for the transactions and their observations of Chor when he again met with agents after the transactions. They could not see the back entry of the house or observe the drug transactions inside the house. The circumstantial evidence was far from conclusive. Chor and the agents all testified that there were other people in the residence at the time of both transactions. The recordings of both transactions constituted objective and qualitatively superior evidence for the jury to compare against Chor's testimony about the details of the transactions and his identification of Dallas as the dealer. The recordings also filled in large holes in the agents' testimony regarding the most critical part of the case: the transaction itself. ¶ 26 It is hard to imagine that after hearing the recordings, a juror would not be more convinced that what Chor claimed happened actually did happen. The State admits to using the recordings as a means of corroborating Chor's testimony. The state not only played and emphasized both recordings on direct, but also replayed a portion of the recording in its rebuttal closing. That recording was the sole piece of evidence the State presented again to the jury during closing arguments. In light of the above facts, the State has failed to demonstrate there is no reasonable possibility that the recordings might have contributed to the defendant's conviction. ¶ 27 The State has not met its burden under Van Kirk, and thus the error is prejudicial and reversal is compelled. Id. at ¶ 45. We reverse Reichmand's conviction and remand for a new trial. Because we find that he is entitled to a new trial, we need not reach the other issues Reichmand presents for appeal. ¶ 28 Reversed and remanded. We concur: PATRICIA O. COTTER, MICHAEL E. WHEAT and BRIAN MORRIS.