Opinion ID: 1314471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the second, re-recorded copy of a tape of the commission's hearing was properly admitted into evidence.

Text: Large asserts that the trial court should not have admitted a second, re-recorded copy of an audio tape of the planning and zoning commission's May 25, 1989 hearing. We disagree. The original tape contained a recording of a statement made at the zoning hearing by the owner of property near the property sold to Large. The statement was that the rezoning was inappropriate because there were restrictive covenants on the property. The parties stipulated to the admission of the first re-recorded copy of the original tape. When Cafferty's attorney attempted to play the tape for the jury, the content of the tape was inaudible. That evening, Cafferty's attorney took the tape to an audio technician who re-recorded the tape. The next day, through the testimony of the commission's chair, Cafferty offered the second, re-recorded tape, which was played for the jury on a different tape player. The chair testified that the sound level of the second, re-recorded tape was a fair and accurate representation of the sound level in the hearing. Large objected claiming the tape was unfairly enhanced and that there was insufficient foundation and authentication to make the tape relevant. The trial court admitted the tape. Later in the trial, Cafferty presented the testimony of the technician who made the second, re-recorded copy of the tape. This technician explained that he merely applied Dolby in re-recording the tape to eliminate the electric hiss made by the original tape. Large contends that I.R.E. 1003 precludes admission of the re-recorded tape and that the trial court allowed the tape to be played without adequate foundation or authentification. The parties refer to the best evidence rule, which is codified in I.C. §§ 9-411 and 9-417. This traditional rule was expanded by the Court in I.R.E. 1001, 1002, and 1003 and is better described as the duplicates rule. I.R.E. 1001(1) includes within the scope of the court rules all forms of duplications, including electronic recordings.