Opinion ID: 2067034
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The 311 Tape

Text: Carter's next argument is that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear the tape of the 311 call that Fuqua made to police to report the gunshot he heard, a tape in which Fuqua stated that they drove off. Carter contends that the court failed to balance the prejudicial effect of the tape against its probative value. The tape had been played for the jury during trial over Carter's hearsay objections. Thereafter, when the parties' counsel were compiling exhibits to be made available to the jury during deliberations, Carter's counsel asserted for the first time that Fuqua's statement that  they drove away (italics added) was not supported by the evidence at trial (because Fuqua did not see who was in the gray Mazda as it pulled off, and did not see Tucker enter the vehicle at any time), and therefore was more prejudicial than probative. Pointing out that the tape had been admissible not for the truth of the matters asserted during the call, but to show why police followed the Mazda, the court ruled that Carter's new objection came too late. [16] Ordinarily, we review a trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Kidd v. United States, 940 A.2d at 129, (the admissibility of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and this court will not disturb its ruling absent an abuse of discretion) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, however, because Carter failed to raise any objection during the trial concerning the error he alleged after the jury had retired for deliberations, [17] we agree with the government that the court's ruling should be reviewed only for plain error. We need not address whether the court erroneously failed to weigh any prejudicial effect of the 311 tape against its probative value, because we are satisfied that even if there was error, it did not affect Carter's substantial rights. See Arnold v. United States, 358 A.2d 335, 342 (D.C.1976) (reasoning that error did not affect defendant's substantial rights where there were other factors in the case which show that the defendant ha[d] been given a fair trial) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Fuqua acknowledged during his testimony on direct that while he said on the call that [t]here's some guys that took off down 13th street, he didn't actually see [Tucker] turn on to 13th Street. The jury also heard Webb's testimony that the gray Mazda drove past him toward 13th Street while Tucker then ... came right behind, walking. Thus, the sworn testimony contradicted Fuqua's statement on the tape that they drove away, and we think it unlikely that Fuqua's use of the word they on the tape swayed the jury in arriving at its verdict about whether Carter was involved with Tucker in the incident on Irving Street. [18]