Court Opinion

ID: 9717133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:58:55.423419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.511700
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice O’Brien:
I concur in the result reached by the majority because I believe that sufficient circumstantial evidence *457was introduced for Mrs. Maxwell to authenticate appellant’s voice. Mrs. Maxwell testified that she recognized the voice as belonging to a woman who had called before and identified herself as a Mrs. Sullivan. While I recognize the possibility that such evidence can be counterfeited, when the undisputed evidence that appellant and Payne were having an affair is considered, it is logical to assume that the person who identified herself as Mrs. Sullivan was indeed Mrs. Sullivan.
While I agree in theory with the majority’s approach—that once someone identifies the voice, anyone can testify as to the substance of the conversation— I find it inapplicable to the present situation. In the first place, it was not made clear to the jury that Mrs. Maxwell’s testimony rises or falls with Payne’s identification. The jury should have been instructed that it could not use Mrs. Maxwell’s testimony unless it believed that Payne was really talking to Mrs. Sullivan.
What is even more crucial, however, is that the “one identification, anyone can testify as to substance” theory can only apply where there can be no doubt that it is the same conversation that is being related. Here Payne testified that the conversation was at 10:45 p.m., while Mrs. Maxwell stated that the conversation she heard was at 8:00. Unless Mrs. Maxwell can herself authenticate the voice, her testimony must fall.