Opinion ID: 1607200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Meaning of Terms in Recorded Conversations

Text: Smith contends that the trial court erred by permitting John Doe gang member Julian Mitchell to interpret code terms used in the phone conversations of John Doe members that were intercepted by the wiretap and recorded. Smith's specific claims are that (1) Mitchell did not qualify to offer his lay opinion regarding the meaning of the terms used in the conversations; and (2) he was never qualified as an expert in the area that he testified about. On the other hand, the State argues that the claim is procedurally barred because it was not preserved for appellate review. The State also argues in the alternative that the claim is without merit. We agree. The State introduced all of the intercepted conversations into evidence through both recordings and transcripts. To help the jury make sense of these conversations, State witness Mitchell was asked to interpret the conversation after the recording was played. Before testifying about the tapes, Mitchell testified that he had listened to the recordings of each of the intercepted calls four or five times prior to trial and had reviewed the transcripts of the calls for accuracy as well. Mitchell was called to the stand on the morning of Wednesday, November 24, 2004. He testified until the court recessed at 4:00 p.m. and the judge released the jury for the Thanksgiving holiday. During this entire day of testimony, the defense never objected to Mitchell's offering opinion testimony or not being an expert witness. At a sidebar discussion at the end of proceedings on Wednesday afternoon, the court told the State that this wiretap evidence was repetitive and only one more hour would be permitted when the trial resumed the next Monday. It was when court resumed on Monday, November 29, and Mitchell took the stand again that the defense voiced an objection to Mitchell's testimony. The defense argued that Mitchell was assuming facts not in evidence and that he had not been qualified as an expert in the field in which he was being asked to give an opinion. The court overruled the objection. Later, the defense objected to Mitchell summarizing some of the calls and that this method of testifying violated the best evidence rule. The State explained that it was summarizing the calls because the court had given them a limited amount of time to present this testimony. The court overruled both objections. The record demonstrates that Smith never objected to Mitchell's testimony on the basis of improper lay witness opinion or the predicate of reliability. Accordingly, these claims cannot be considered on appeal. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) ([I]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.). Also, with regard to the other belated objections raised by Smith, these claims are also not properly preserved because defense counsel permitted Mitchell to testify without objection for an entire day of trial, only objecting to his testimony when court resumed after the holidays. Even if the claims based on the belated objections were properly preserved for appellate review, we find that these claims are without merit. Florida's Evidence Code provides that a lay witness may testify in the form of opinion when the witness cannot otherwise accurately communicate what he or she perceived so long as the opinion will not mislead the trier of fact and the opinion is not one that requires special knowledge, skill, experience, or training. § 90.701, Fla. Stat. (2005). Section 90.702 governs opinion testimony by expert witnesses and provides that a witness can be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or training. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2005). Whether a witness is qualified as an expert is largely a matter of discretion for the trial court. See, e.g., Ramirez v. State, 542 So.2d 352, 355 (Fla.1989) (The determination of a witness's qualifications to express an expert opinion is peculiarly within the discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed absent a clear showing of error.). While counsel must elicit from the witness the part of the witness's background that qualifies him as an expert, counsel need not formally proffer the witness as an expert to the court. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 702.1, at 687 (2007 ed.). Mitchell clearly had both knowledge and experience regarding the codes. In fact, the State established in direct questioning that Mitchell used these codes on a daily basis in conversations and especially in phone conversations to keep the police from knowing our business. Mitchell had already testified at length earlier in the trial about the operation and organization of John Doe. His testimony about the John Doe gang was completely substantiated by the testimony of numerous other John Doe witnesses. Moreover, the other witnesses confirmed that Mitchell was third in the command structure of John Doe. Additionally, John Doe member Eric Mitchell independently testified about the codes used by John Doe in phone conversations to indicate the various types and quantities of drugs. These codes were the same as Julian Mitchell's interpretation of the taped conversations. Moreover, courts have held that law enforcement officers and others may testify about codes used by drug dealers to thwart detection. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 872 F.2d 385, 392 (11th Cir.1989) (approving testimony by co-defendant and special agent about meaning of terms paper, candy, dresses, certain numbers, the full house, and certain real estate terms in intercepted conversations in drug prosecution). In Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 891-92 (Fla.2000), we held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting an experienced dealer of crack cocaine to testify as an expert regarding the identity and approximate weight of the rocky substance in a bag. Furthermore, police officers have testified as expert witnesses regarding the street language in the drug culture and explained to the jury their interpretation of the words used, which occurred in contexts in which their normal lexicographical meanings would be illogical and meaningless. See Daniels v. State, 381 So.2d 707, 709-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), aff'd, 389 So.2d 631 (Fla.1980); Slater v. State, 356 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Accordingly, we find this claim not preserved for appellate review and to be without merit.