Opinion ID: 1604711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Agent Hawkins's Testimony

Text: ¶ 8. Liddell first argues that her attorney was deficient when he allowed Agent Hawkins to identify her voice on the audio recording of the drug transaction without proper predicate or authentication. Specifically, Liddell states that [u]ntil the State laid the predicate that Hawkins was familiar with [her] voice, it was error to admit the testimony that [she] was speaking or that it was her voice on the recordings. Additionally, Liddell argues that her attorney's elicitation of the authentication on his cross-examination of Agent Hawkins was deficient. Her arguments fail for two reasons. ¶ 9. First, Agent Hawkins's testimony that it was Liddell's voice he heard on the recording is not subject to the authentication requirement of MRE 901. The State was not trying to admit the audiotape itself into evidence. Thus, no authentication of the tape itself was required. Accordingly, the failure to object to the authentication of Agent Hawkins's testimony was not ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, the failure of Liddell's attorney to require the State to lay the predicate for Agent Hawkins's testimony is harmless error, as we are not left to guess whether Agent Hawkins had personal knowledge of Liddell's voice, as he testified to that effect on cross-examination. ¶ 10. Liddell's second argument regarding her attorney's handling of Agent Hawkins's testimony is inconsistent with her first argument. She argues on one hand that her counsel's failure to object to Agent Hawkins's testimony was deficient, while on the other hand she argues that his attempt to do so on cross-examination was deficient as well. [3] Inconsistency aside, Liddell's argument must fail, as she did not establish the second prong of the Strickland test, that is, that she was prejudiced by her attorney's statements on cross. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Even assuming that his elicitation of Agent Hawkins's previous dealings with Liddell was so deficient as to meet the first prong, plenty of other evidence exists-such as the clear, unequivocal testimony of the C.I., Smith, and Hawkins  to support the jury's verdict. In other words, her attorney's cross-examination of Agent Hawkins did not deprive Liddell of a fair trial, or result in a trial that was unreliable.