Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Excluding redacted version of tape recording of Dennis Morgan's interview

Text: When called as a defense witness, Dennis Morgan testified regarding statements he had made to prosecution investigator Detective Edwin Milkey in a tape-recorded interview. Thereafter, the defense called Detective Milkey and questioned him about the interview. Defense counsel asked Milkey if he had reviewed a transcription of the tape-recording that had been prepared by the defense. Milkey answered: I have looked at one and a quarter pages of what's purported to be on the tape. But what's on the transcript is not what's on the tape. During a recess in the trial, defense attorney Bernstein told the court that the transcription was nothing more than a working copy that a secretary had prepared after listening to the tape. This working copy, Bernstein said, was never meant to be a word for word accurate transcription but was just a guide to go along with the tape. That night, Detective Milkey listened to the tape-recording to refresh his recollection of Morgan's comments in the interview. The next day when Milkey returned to the witness stand, defense counsel again asked him about the interview of Morgan; counsel used the defense working copy as the basis for the questioning. In responding to a question, Detective Milkey remarked that the working copy transcript of the tape recording of the Morgan interview wasn't complete as to what was said. Milkey added that the previous evening he had made corrections to the working copy, and in response to another question he said that the way it is written on the transcript is in error. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Detective Milkey if the working copy transcript prepared by the defense accurately reflected what was on the tape recording of the interview. The defense immediately objected that the answer would be irrelevant and immaterial. The trial court overruled the objection. Milkey then answered: No, it is not. When the prosecution asked if the transcript was different from the tape in more than one way, Milkey replied: `Tes, in over 400 ways. To refute Milkey's comment, defendant sought to have a redacted version of the tape recording played for; the jury. The prosecution objected to the playing of a redacted tape, but it had no objection to playing the tape recording in its entirety. The court found that the tape recording of the Morgan interview was irrelevant to any issue in the case but said that it would allow the jury to listen to the entire tape if the parties so stipulated. When the defense refused to do so, the court stated:ÔÇö Absent stipulation, the tape will not be played. Defendant challenges the trial court's ruling as a violation of his right under Evidence Code section 780, subdivision (i) to prove the nonexistence of any fact testified to by a witness. Preliminarily we observe that contrary to defendant's assertion, that provision does not' grant litigants an unbridled right to prove the nonexistence of any fact a witness has testified to. Rather, it provides that the court or the jury may consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, and it specifies in several subdivisions categories of evidence that might be relevant for this purpose including, in subdivision (i), [t]he existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness. Even assuming that the trial court erred in not allowing a redacted version of Morgan's tape-recorded interview to be played for the jury, reversal of a judgment or decision by reason of the erroneous exclusion of evidence is proper only when there has been a miscarriage of justice. (Evid.Code,  354.) That is not the case here. It is not reasonably probable that upon hearing evidence of the nonexistent fact defendant sought to establish (i.e., that Detective Milkey was exaggerating when he said the defense working copy transcription contained 400 errors), the jury would have reached a result more favorable to defendant. ( People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243.) Defendant also claims the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront an adverse witness (Morgan as well as Milkey) and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present evidence in his own behalf. As in People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1182, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384, defendant fails to support that claim with adequate argument. We therefore reject it as not properly raised. ( Ibid.; People v. Gordon, supra, 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1244, fn. 3, 270 Cal.Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251; People v. Bonin (1989) 47 Cal.3d 808, 857, fn. 6, 254 Cal.Rptr. 298, 765 P.2d 460.)