Opinion ID: 2570593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cassette Tapes

Text: In his first issue, Contreras contends the trial court erred by allowing the cassette tapes of the drug transactions into the jury room during deliberations. In a factually similar case, this Court said that tape recordings of drug transactions are non-testimonial, and should be made available for a jury's review as any other exhibit. Warner v. State, 897 P.2d 472, 475 (Wyo.1995). This Court went on to say that a trial court's ruling permitting a jury to review the tapes should not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.    In addition, the exercise of that discretion should be upheld so long as the audio recording is otherwise admissible, and where the state introduces something more than a minimal amount of other evidence of culpability. Id. We will first address the question of whether the cassette tapes were otherwise admissible. W.R.E. 402 states that [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by statute, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. W.R.E. 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. While the cassette tapes alone could not prove Contreras' guilt, they do show that a drug transaction took place at which the informant was present. The instructions to the jury specified that delivery of a controlled substance to the informant was an element of each offense. Thus, the cassette tapes make the existence of an element of the offenses more probable than it would be without the cassette tapes. The cassette tapes, therefore, are relevant and admissible. We next inquire whether the State introduced more than a minimal amount of other evidence of Contreras' culpability. In Warner, 897 P.2d at 475-76, we held that the test was satisfied when the law enforcement officers testified about what they heard while monitoring the informant's concealed transmitter; the informant testified about the drug purchase; and the drugs were introduced into evidence. Here, the State produced the same type of evidence. The agents testified about how they searched the informant before the purchase to ensure he had no other drugs; they testified about what they heard through the concealed transmitter; the informant testified that he bought the drugs from Contreras; and the drugs were introduced into evidence. The cassette tapes were admissible at trial, and the State introduced more than a minimal amount of other evidence of Contreras' guilt. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the cassette tapes into the jury room.