Court Opinion

ID: 9667532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:48:18.034389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:38.683829
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Judge.
Counsel for appellant again urges that it was error to permit the “attempted impeachment” of the testimony of the sheriff, a defense witness, with a recording of a conversation between the sheriff and the county attorney made without the knowledge of the sheriff.
Testifying in behalf of appellant, the sheriff answered in the affirmative when asked if in his opinion appellant acted more *29like one who had been using barbiturates than a man who was intoxicated. He further testified upon direct examination by appellant’s counsel that he had talked to the county attorney about a week or so before the trial about the case and his testimony, and was asked and answered:
“Q. And you informed him then that your testimony would be that this man was not drunk, is that correct? A. I didn’t tell him he wasn’t drunk. I said he acted more like a doped man than he did a drunk man. I believe that is the words I used.
“Q. And you were called here as a witness by this defendant? A. That’s right.”
With this testimony the direct examination was concluded, and the cross-examination began with the following testimony:
“Q. Didn’t you tell me, Mr. Lindsey, that * * * I believe my question was ‘Would you say Mr. Hutson was drunk’, and I believe you answered, T damn sure would.’ A. No.
“Q. You didn’t answer that? A. No, I didn’t.
“Q. You definitely state that you never did answer that way? A. I sure do.
“Q. Did you tell this defense attorney, Paul Donald, and Joe Cleveland, that the defendant was drunk? A. I said he was drunk or doped. I didn’t say he was definitely drunk. I said he was drunk or doped, and he acted more like a doped man than he did a drunk man.
“Q. But you didn’t tell me that he was damn sure drunk? A. No, I said he was drunk or doped.
“Q. Mr. Lindsey, would you recognize your own voice if you heard it played over the machine there? A. I don’t know whether I would or not.”
Objection was offered and, the jury being retired, the recording was played. The county attorney then testified and identified the voice of the sheriff.
Over objection, a portion of the recording was played before *30the jury, being offered by the state and admitted for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the sheriff.
If we understand appellant’s contention it is that to admit such a recording would deprive the defendant of his right to be confronted with and to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
The county attorney testified that while he was talking to a highway patrolman in his oifice the sheriff came in; that the “record was running” and he left it on to see that no testimony was changed and “that is what happened;” that the record was made while they were sitting there. He also testified “that is the sheriff’s voice” and testified that the record had been in his possession since that time and “is true and correct and has not been changed.”
Two Texas Highway Patrolmen were also present at the time of the recorded conversation, according to the testimony of the county attorney.
Upon this testimony the court ruled that the portions of the recording which were at variance with the testimony of the witness on the present trial would be admitted.
Where the witness denies or testifies that he does not remember making a prior inconsistent statement, the adverse party may prove that he did make such statement. McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, 2d Ed., p. 543, Sec. 695.
The rule applies to oral as well as written inconsistent statements. Foster v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 288, 12 S.W. 2d 574; McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, 2d Ed., p. 544, Sec. 696.
The rule in other jurisdictions appears to be that not only the testimony of the witnesses but original transcriptions obtained by the use of the dictagraph are admissible upon proper authentication. 20 Am. Jur. 249, Sec. 258.
There would be no more reason for exclusion of the mechanically recorded conversation than there would be for excluding the testimony of human witnesses who heard the conversation. U. S. v. Schanerman, 150 F. 2d 941, 944.
A wire recording only partly audible has been held admis*31sible in the discretion of the court, where sufficiently audible to corroborate the testimony of a witness who overheard the recorded conversation. State v. Slater, 36 Wash. 2d 357, 218 P. 2d 329.
Appellant exercised his right to cross-examine the county attorney. He did not question the accuracy of the recording after hearing it played.
We remain convinced that the trial court did not err in admitting the recording of the prior inconsistent statement of the sheriff for impeachment purposes.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.