Opinion ID: 1773990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court erred by allowing the audio tape and illegal substance into evidence.

Text: ¶ 20. White argues the State failed to meet the requirements of the seven-factor test enunciated in Sparks v. State, 412 So.2d 754 (Miss.1982). This seven-factor test has been supplanted by the Mississippi Rules of Evidence and is no longer applicable to the admission of tape recordings. See Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116, 118-19 (Miss.1993). Thus, this Court looks to M.R.E. 401 and 901 to determine if the tape recording was properly authenticated and identified by the State. ¶ 21. The State's evidence showed Turner was wearing a body wire during the transaction. Crew and Whitaker monitored the transaction from a remote location. Crew explained how the tape was made; how the tape was preserved; and, how he had reviewed the tape and found it to be in the same condition as when it was made. Crew also identified the voices on the tape and provided an account of the chain of custody concerning the tape. Admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See generally Stromas, 618 So.2d at 120. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the tape into evidence. ¶ 22. With respect to the illegal substance, White objected to its admission asserting a chain of custody had not been established. On appeal, White submits the cocaine should not have been introduced into evidence because: 1) Turner was an admitted cocaine user; 2) Crew had never before relied upon information supplied by Turner; 3) neither officer saw the cocaine change hands; and, 4) George Turner, Levon Turner's brother, testified Turner had a reputation for not telling the truth. [5] White also alleges Turner, because he was a cocaine user, could have given the officers cocaine not purchased during the controlled buy. ¶ 23. Many of White's arguments pertain to the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. These arguments were questions properly decided by the jury during trial. Additionally, White's claims surrounding the sufficiency of the evidence were addressed supra, and found to be without merit. The evidence presented showed Crew and Whitaker searched Turner before the buy. White picked up Turner at 6:45 p.m. and dropped him off at 6:48 p.m. After the buy, the officers found cocaine on Turner's person. The evidence was duly tagged, bagged and initialed by Crew, Whitaker and Turner. Crew maintained possession of the cocaine until he took it to the state crime lab. There it was placed in the vault until it was tested, and, thereafter it was returned to the vault where it remained until it was returned to the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. Crew and Whitaker testified the evidence bag produced at trial contained their initials and it was in substantially the same condition. Heath also testified the bag produced at trial contained the Mississippi Crime Lab case number, the exhibit number, her initials and the date she sealed it. ¶ 24. Should a chain of custody objection arise, the trial court should inquire whether there is any indication or reasonable inference of probable tampering with or substitution of the evidence. Wilson v. State, 574 So.2d 1324, 1335 (Miss.1990). Whether a chain of custody has been properly established is left to the discretion of the trial court. Nalls v. State, 651 So.2d 1074, 1077 (Miss.1995); Wells v. State, 604 So.2d 271, 277 (Miss. 1992). Based upon the facts of this case, this Court finds the cocaine has an unbroken chain of custody and was therefore admissible.