Court Opinion

ID: 9624161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:52:55.113464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:40.216428
License: Public Domain

Benton, J.,
concurring.
I agree that, as a general rule, statements made in a taped conversation by persons other than the defendant are not hearsay if admitted, not for their truth, but “to make [defendant’s] responses intelligible to the jury and recognizable as admissibns.” United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 (1974). See also United States v. Jordan, 810 F.2d 262, 264 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1032 (1987). In this case, a hearsay objection was made. However, the jury was not instructed that the informant’s statements were not to be considered for their truth. The error in admitting the statements without limitation was not rendered harmless because the police officers could have testified to what the defendant said. Neither officer gave testimony concerning the defendant’s statements. Thus, we do not know what, if anything, they heard the defendant say or what they could have related at trial.
Instead, I am persuaded by other circumstances that the error in failing to instruct the jury concerning the tapes was harmless. The Commonwealth did not transcribe the tape “[b]ecause of the poor quality on it and also the time that would be involved in trying to have a secretary transcribe it.” Furthermore, the detective who had the tape testified as follows:
Q: Isn’t it true you couldn’t identify what speaker said what at certain points in time in this transcription?
A: That’s true. Yes, sir. Like I said, the poor quality of the tape kind of prohibited one of the secretaries from trying to transcribe it.
The tape was offered only to corroborate David Dilliston’s testimony that two stolen guns, which the informant purchased and delivered to the police, had been in the defendant’s possession. The defendant identifies no statement made by the informant that *372was intelligible on the tape and was offered for the truth of its content. Thus, no harm or prejudice is shown by the failure to caution the jury concerning the consideration of the evidence.