Opinion ID: 157908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tanberg Testimony

Text: Chee claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a government rebuttal witness, FBI Agent John Tanberg, to testify about his unrecorded interview of Maurice Chee, one of the men with whom appellant forced Dawes to have sex. Appellant asserts that this testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. The government counters that the hearsay in Tanberg’s testimony concerned Maurice Chee’s prior inconsistent statements. We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis, 40 F.3d 1069, 1073 (10th Cir. 1994). This standard applies to rebuttal testimony as well. See Marsee v. United States Tobacco Co., 866 F.2d 319, 324 (10th Cir. 1989). When the prosecution called Tanberg, Maurice Chee had already testified for the defense that Kenneth Chee did not physically assault Dawes or take her -11- clothes off on the night of October 2, 1995, and that rather than being forced to have sex with multiple partners, Dawes enjoyed the experience. To rebut Maurice Chee’s testimony, the prosecution called Tanberg, who had interviewed him on October 4, 1995. Over objections from defense counsel, the trial court allowed Tanberg to testify that during Tanberg’s interview of Maurice Chee, the latter described the events of October 2 in terms that directly contradicted his subsequent trial testimony concerning the degree of force appellant used against Dawes and his suggestion that Dawes consented to the intercourse. Tanberg’s testimony was not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, but only to impeach Maurice Chee, who had been questioned about his interview with Tanberg. See Fed. R. Evid. 613(b) (“evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same”); Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 408 (1980); United States v. Canterbury, 985 F.2d 483, 486 (10th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, appellant argues, Tanberg’s testimony should have been excluded because it both reiterated Maurice Chee’s own testimony, and ranged beyond the witness’s testimony to include substantive evidence of prior statements that was not otherwise admissible. See United States v. Carter, 973 F.2d 1509, 1512 (10th Cir. 1992) (prohibiting introduction of hearsay evidence under the guise of impeachment when the prosecution actually seeks to introduce the evidence for its -12- truth). Tanberg’s testimony, however, was limited to describing the inconsistencies of Maurice Chee’s prior statements. The district court therefore acted within its discretion in allowing it.