Opinion ID: 1060898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: admission of transcript of recorded statement

Text: Next, the appellant contends it was reversible error for the trial court to allow a transcript of a tape-recorded statement into evidence when the State was unable to produce the original recording. The State argues that the original has been lost and that the transcript was properly admitted under the exception to the best evidence rule. The evidence at issue here consists of a transcript of a tape-recorded interview between the appellant and Detectives Denton and Griffy. On the initial direct appeal of this case, the Supreme Court reversed the death penalty based upon the improper introduction of a portion of the interview. In accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion, that portion of the statement was not introduced during the hearing on remand. On remand, a redacted transcript was read into evidence which omitted any mention of Brett Patterson. As part of his complaint, the appellant argues that he was forced into the untenable position of subsequently having to introduce the unredacted portions of the statement which referred to Patterson's involvement. Prior to the introduction of the transcript into evidence, there was some discussion among the parties and the judge concerning the whereabouts of the original taped recording. Apparently, the tape was lost or misplaced by the Supreme Court sometime during the prior proceedings. The trial judge made the following ruling: All right. And, the Tennessee Supreme Court's already seen it. It's been authenticated by the Trial Court in Montgomery County and the Tennessee Supreme Court. I'm going to let them read that portion which the Supreme Court said was admissible ... As an officer of the Court, I'm saying that [the state] properly has this transcribed from the original tapes, and over your objection and after noting your exception, I'm going to allow its admission ... It's just that the tape is now gone and has been lost by the Tennessee Supreme Court ... and I'm assuming that this transcript ... is proper. According to the record before the Court, the transcript of the recorded interview was authenticated and introduced during the original trial of this case. See also State v. Cauthern, 778 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tenn. 1989). During that trial, the trial judge ordered the State to redact those portions of the statement that referred to Patterson before the statement was introduced. Moreover, the trial judge on remand acknowledged the fact that the taped recording has been lost. Rule 1004 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence provides that other evidence of the original recording is admissible if the original has been lost or destroyed. Accordingly, the introduction of the transcript was proper. Neither is there any merit to the appellant's claim that he was prejudiced by the introduction of both the redacted and unredacted transcripts. The appellant seems to suggest that the evidence of the redacted statement placed undue emphasis on his involvement in the crimes. The trial judge, however, allowed the witness to take the stand again and read the unredacted portions into evidence. Any harm caused by the redacted statement, therefore, was cured by the additional evidence. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.