Court Opinion

ID: 9648994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:40:07.039763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:08.183873
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. Faced with clearly prejudicial and excludable statements in the audio portion of the tape (i.e. appellant’s invocation of his Miranda rights), it was not an abuse of the trial court’s sound discretion to order the suppression of the entire audio portion of the tape rather than redact particular statements.
I do not join in the majority’s analysis of the alleged inflammatory nature of such audio or video tapes in general. Nor do I join in the majority’s alternate holding that appellant’s remarks during the sobriety tests were testimonial communications protected by the Fifth Amendment. I find neither discussion necessary to the disposition of this appeal. Furthermore, I do not perceive this appeal to have raised or decided what statements by appellant may be related to the factfinder at trial by means other than the audio portion of the video tape. We are called upon here only to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion *502in suppressing the audio portion of the video tape. I would simply hold that it did not.