Court Opinion

ID: 9791778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:17:29.387413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:38.408786
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES,
(dissenting):
I dissent.
As to the testimony of Sandra Brumfield, the transcript reveals :
*274“Q. Does the date of April 29th, 1967, have any particular significance to you? A. It was Park City Junior-City Prom night.
“Q. Was there anything else that occurred on that day that you recall? A. A telephone call.
“Q. Beg pardon? A. A telephone call.
‘ ‘ Q. Miss Brumfield, are you related in any way or were you to Mary Ann Brecht ? A. Yes.
“Q. And what is that relationship ? A. She was my sister.
“Q. Do you know Robert Brecht? A. Yes.
“Q. Have you from time to time stayed in the home of Mr. Brecht and your sister during their marriage? A. Yes.
‘ ‘ Q. For what purpose was that ? A. To be with them and to baby sit for them.
“Q. What other significance does the 29th day of April, 1967, have to you? A. A telephone call.
“Q. Where was that, did you receive a phone call? A. Yes.
“Q. And where were you when you received the phone call? A. At home in Park City.
“Q. And who was making that phone call? A. Robert Brecht.
“Q. Had yon spoken with him on prior occasions on the telephone? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you know positively that that was Robert Brecht on the telephone? A. Yes.
“Q. And what did Mr. Brecht ask? A. He asked to speak to my sister, Mary Ann.
“Q. Beg pardon? A. He asked to speak to Mary Ann.
“Q. And what did you then do? A. I called her to the phone.
“Q. Did she take the phone? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you speak to Mr. Brecht? A. Yes.
*275‘ ‘ Q. And what did yon do then ? A. I went to the kitchen and lifted the receiver on the other phone.
“Q. Was this in yonr home? A. Yes.
“Q. Were there two telephones or a telephone and an extension in that home ? A. Yes.
“Q. And was that at Park City? A. Yes.
“Q. Do you recall why you went to that other telephone and picked it up ? A. I just went out and picked it up.
“Q. What did you hear?
“MR. HEARD: I object, Your Honor, there is no foundation laid here. The call was not made to this person, any testimony she gives, speech, would be hearsay; the speech or conversation was not addressed to that lady, no foundation sufficiently laid to show that it was Robert Brecht on the telephone that evening.
“THE COURT: Overruled.
“Q. What did you hear at that time, Miss Brumfield?” A. They were arguing.
“Q. Who was arguing? A. Mary Ann and Bob.
“Q. Do you recall specifically overhearing any particular words at that time ? A. He made a threat.
“Q. And what was that threat? A. He said, ‘I got my shotgun out of hock, I am coming down and I will use it if I have to.’
‘ ‘ Q. Did you hear any more after that ? A. No, I hung up.
“MR. BLENKNER: Thank you, that’s all I have, your Honor.
“MR. HEARD: I believe the Defense has no questions of this witness, Your Honor.”
The only objection of counsel was on foundation. Counsel brought out in its case-in-chief testimony from Robert Brecht concerning the same telephone call, but a little different version, about an argument and telling the deceased off with some profanity.
*276What all this amounts to is a mere over-hearing of matters which the defendant seeks to keep secret. Sandra was in her own home, was called by the defendant, and, under such circumstances where the defendant could not reasonably expect complete privacy. This is a far cry from an invasion of privacy, as discussed in Katz and the other federal cases cited in the majority opinion. Even under the most stringent federal cases, this amounts to nothing more than an over-hearing of a conversation with no invasion of privacy involved.
Objection of counsel, quoted in full above, recognized this. Thus, I do not agree that this was reversible error.