STATE v WARWICK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 11988 IN THE SUPF.EME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1972 THE STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ORVILLE ARCHIE WARWICK, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u ~ l s e lof Record: For Appellant : S a n d a l l , Moses and Cavan, B i l l i n g s , Montana. C h a r l e s F. Moses a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. F o r Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana. David V. G l i k o , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana. Thomas A. Olson, County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana. Thomas D. Gai, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana. Submitted: Decided Filed: FEB 2 4 ' { ~ i + J J a n u a r y 11, 1972 FEB 2 1972 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This a p p e a l i s from a c o n v i c t i o n of murder i n t h e f i r s t degree. Defendant was t r i e d by a j u r y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e i g h t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County, found g u i l t y and sentenced t o l i E e imprisonment. A t about t h e hour of 8:30 a.m. on December 23, 1964, M r . E a r l Plum, a n employee of G l a c i e r Mountain Cheese Co., G a l l a t i n Gateway, w h i l e t r a v e l i n g a long Cottonwood Road, s o u t h of Bozeman, came upon t h e s c a n t i l y c l a d body of a young woman. Plum immedi- a t e l y c a l l e d t h e s h e r i f f of G a l l a t i n County, Con McClurg, and then r e t u r n e d t o t h e s i t u s of t h e body and blocked o f f t h e road t o s e e t h a t n o t h i n g d i s t u r b e d t h e scene u n t i l t h e law o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d . Plum t e s t i f i e d t h e body l a y on a % s h a l lb r i d g e , c l a d only i n a bra and p a n t i e s and t h a t a d r e s s , s l i p , c o a t , and boots were i n a p i l e a s h o r t d i s t a n c e from t h e body. S h e r i f f McClurg, upon being n o t i f i e d by Plum, g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r a number o f s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s , Bozeman p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , and t h e then county a t t o r n e y , Page Wellcome, and proceeded t o t h e scene a r r i v i n g a t about 9:40 a.m. P i c t u r e s were taken; measure- ments were made of t h e a r e a ; and p l a s t e r c a s t s were made of t i r e marks. A l l p h y s i c a l evidence was analyzed by t h e l o c a l o f f i c i a l s and then s e n t t o t h e FBI l a b o r a t o r y . This p h y s i c a l evidence was introduced a t t r i a l , some of which w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o l a t e r i n our d i s c u s s i o n . A broken watch which had stopped a t 4:20 and a n engagement r i n g were on t h e body of the young woman. The body was removed t o a f u n e r a l home i n Bozeman where D r . Mark Young, t h e c o r o n e r , and D r . Volney S t e e l e , a p a t h o l o g i s t , performed an autopsy a t about 11:30 a.m., on December 23. Their r e p o r t shows t h e following: f a c e b a t t e r e d and b r u i s e d , mandible f r a c t u r e d , f r a c t u r e d d i s l o c a t i o n of l e f t a n k l e , many a b r a s i o n s , deformed p e l v i s , f r a c t u r e d c l a v i c l e and sternum. I n t h e i r opinion t h e cause of d e a t h was due t o "severe e x t e r n a l trauma". No i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e body was made o r announced t o t h e p u b l i c u n t i l between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. t h e evening of December 23, when a Mrs. Mary Kuhar of B i l l i n g s , Montana, a r r i v e d and i d e n t i f i e d t h e body a s t h a t of h e r d a u g h t e r , Bobbi Clark. Bobbi C l a r k , a g r a d u a t e from Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , was a t e a c h e r a t K a l i s p e l l , Montana. On t h e evening o f December 22, 1964, s h e drove from K a l i s p e l l t o Bozeman. She was accompanied by h e r roommate a s f a r a s Three Forks, h e r roommate's home. The roommate t e s t i f i e d t h a t Bobbi l e f t Three Forks a t about 1:30 a.m., December 23, and h e r c a r was noted a r r i v i n g i n Bozeman a t about t h e hour o f 2:00 a.m. by a l o c a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r . Jack Wandler, Bobbi lark's f i a n c e e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had expected h e r t o s t a y a t h i s apartment; t h a t on t h e evening o f December 22 he had cleaned t h e apartment and w h i l e w a i t i n g f o r h e r t o a r r i v e he had f a l l e n a s l e e p and had n o t awakened u n t i l about 6:QO a.m. Notfinding Bobbi t h e r e , he c a l l e d h e r roommate i n Three Forks; made a n o t h e r c a l l t o a l o c a l f r i e n d of ~ o b b i ' s , a Mrs. F u l k e r ; and then went o u t s i d e where he found ~ o b b i ' s locked c a r parked i n an alleyway parking space back o f h i s apartment. He then went s e v e r a l blocks t o a f r a t e r n i t y house t o f i n d out i f h i s apartment mate, J e r r y S a r g e n t , had seen o r heard from Bobbi, and, l e a r n i n g t h a t he had n o t , he r e t u r n e d t o h i s apartment and c a l l e d t h e Bozeman p o l i c e a t 6 : 4 5 a.m. The c h i e f of p o l i c e , Ron C u t t i n g , answered t h e c a l l ; checked t h e parked a u t o belonging t o Bobbi C l a r k ; and obtained a p i c t u r e of her from Wandler. S h e r i f f McClurg. This p i c t u r e was turned over t o Chief C u t t i n g and a n o t h e r o f f i c e r r e t u r n e d t o t h e c a r where they observed about a dozen f o o t p r i n t s of a woman's shoe on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e of t h e c a r which disappeared when they g o t t o hard snow. T i r e marks of a n o t h e r c a r were observed pro- g r e s s i n g up t o ~ o b b i ' sc a r , but no c a s t s could be made o f t h o s e marks. P l a s t e r c a s t s of t i r e t r a c k s found n e a r t h e body were s e n t t o t h e FBI. On December 31, 1964, t h e FBI f i l e d a r e p o r t which s t a t e d t h a t t h e t r e a d design of t h e c a s t s "conform most c l o s e l y t o t h e -design of a Cordovan l o w - p r o f i l e j e t t i r e 1 \ At t h e time t h e comparison of t r e a d designs was made, t h e FBI f i l e did not contain a Crest Imperial tread design. A t t r i a l the FBI a g e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t "we j u s t c a n ' t g e t every d e s i g n t h a t i s made and keep up t o d a t e * * *." The FBI s e n t a copy of t h e Cordovan t r e a d design t o S h e r i f f McClurg t o a s s i s t him i n h i s investigation. P r i o r t o r e c e i v i n g t h e FBI r e p o r t , t h e Bozeman p o l i c e on December 2 3 , i n i t i a t e d a survey o f "every t i r e d e a l e r i n town" i n an a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y t h e type and make o f t h e t i r e which made t h e t r a c k s t h a t t h e p l a s t e r c a s t s were made from. Finally, i n t h e e a r l y p a r t of January 1965, a t i r e was l o c a t e d a t a amble's s t o r e t h a t "appeared t o match t h e c a s t s . " a C r e s t Imperial. That t i r e was "Crest Imperial" i s a t r a d e name used on t i r e s t h a t a r e marketed only by amble's. On t h e b a s i s of t h i s information S h e r i f f McClurg e a r l y i n January a d v e r t i s e d i n t h e loca 1 news media t h a t h i s o f f i c e was seeking information "with r e s p e c t t o t h e t y p e o r kind of t i r e " which he believed was involved i n t h e d e a t h of Bobbi Clark. On January 15, 1965, a s h o r t time a f t e r t h e s h e r i f f ' s p u b l i c i n q u i r y about t h e t i r e s , t h e defendant r e p o r t e d t o t h e Bozeman p o l i c e t h a t two t i r e s ; had been s t o l e n from h i s r e s i d e n c e . Also on January 1 5 , 1965, one Roy F o s t e r , w h i l e on h i s way home from work, found a C r e s t I m p e r i a l narrow w h i t e s i d e w a l l t i r e on t h e Bridger Canyon r ~ a d ,sometime around 4 : 4 0 p.m. t i r e was found a l o n g s i d e t h e g u a r d r a i l n e x t t o t h e road. The Foster t e s t i f i e d 'yt was extremely clean" and "looked a s though i t might have been washed." F o s t e r stopped and picked up t h e t i r e because he had heard "ads on t h e radio" t h a t t h e p o l i c e were looking f o r a s e t of t i r e s and "1 n o t i c e d t h a t i t [ t h e t i r e ] h a d n ' t been t h e r e t h a t morning when I went t o work". called the sheriff's office. F o s t e r took t h e t i r e home and A deputy s h e r i f f came t o ~ o s t e r ' s home and took t h e t i r e i n t o custody. The t i r e had been found approximately f o u r - t e n t h s o f a m i l e up t h e Bridger Canyon road from a f i s h h a t c h e r y and rock s l i d e . On January 1 8 , 1965, one A l f r e d Kinney, w h i l e plowing snow on t h e Bridger Canyon road, "noticed a t i r e l y i n g up on t h e s i d e of t h e h i l l t h e r e a t t h e rock s l i d e " . Kinney stopped h i s t r u c k and secured t h e t i r e because he a l s o had heard " a d v e r t i s i n g on t h e r a d i o and t h e papers" t h a t t h e s h e r i f f was looking f o r t i r e s . The t i r e found by Kinney was a ''Crest'' and "it was i n good shape." Kinney turned t h e t i r e over t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e . Subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r had had two C r e s t I m p e r i a l t i r e s on i t . The recovered t i r e s were s e n t t o t h e FBI l a b o r a t o r y t o be compared w i t h t h e plajter c a s t s made a t t h e scene where Bobbi C l a r k ' s body was found. An FBI a g e n t t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l t h a t t h e p l a s t e r c a s t s made where t h e body was found and t h e t i r e s l o c a t e d i n t h e Bridger Canyon a r e a were of t h e same s i z e , same t r e a d d e s i g n , and had t h e same degree of wear. " F u r t h e r , i t was e i t h e r t h e s e two t i r e s t h a t made t h e s e two impressions o r two o t h e r t i r e s having t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s t o t r e a d s i z e , t r e a d s i z e and t r e a d d e s i g n and worn i n t h i s manner, worn t o t h i s degree." These t i r e s a r e a p a r t of t h e c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t brought focus upon t h e defendant a s a s u s p e c t . O February 2 , 1965, a t t h e r e q u e s t of B u r l e i g h A l l e n , n a former FBI a g e n t and a p r i v a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r h i r e d by Bobbi lark's mother t o a s s i s t l o c a l law o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , defendant v o l u n t a r i l y , a f t e r being advised of h i s r i g h t s , consented t o a l l o w t h e l o c a l law enforcement o f f i c i a l s and M r . A l l e n t o s e a r c h h i s 1959 Chevrolet c a r and h i s apartment. This a u t h o r i z a t i o n went t o a l l p h y s i c a l items of evidence, f i n g e r p r i n t a n a l y s i s , and chemical i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f any substances they f e l t should be analyzed. With t h i s c o n s e n t , t h e law o f f i c e r s and M r . Allen completely checked t h e c a r , t a k i n g i t t o a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n where i t was put up on a h o i s t . Concerning t h a t i n s p e c t i o n M r . A l l e n testified: "We n o t i c e d , I n o t i c e d , t h a t i t was extremely c l e a n . I mean i t wasn't a s t h o u g h - i t had been through mud o r a n y t h i n g l i k e t h a t ." Concerning t h e i n t e r i o r of t h e c a r , he t e s t i f i e d : "The i n t e r i o r o f t h e c a r , ceptionally clean. It * * * was a l s o ex- On t h a t same day, February 2 , 1965, M r . A l l e n , i n t h e presence of s e v e r a l loca 1 law enforcement o f f i c e r s , took a t h i r t y e i g h t page statement from t h e defendant concerning many f a c e t s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . This s t a t e m e n t was taped and t r a n s c r i b e d . I n t h e i n t e r v a l between February 2 , 1965,and t h e time of t r i a l , some f i v e y e a r s , t h e t a p e s disappeared. A t t h e t r i a l , a s t a t e ' s w i t n e s s , one Dick Kountz, t e s t i f i e d t h a t sometime i n t h e f i r s t p a r t of February 1965, he was o u t poaching d e e r w i t h defendant and w h i l e i n t h e process o f d r e s s i n g o u t a d e e r t h e defendant t o l d him Bobbi Clark". "* * * he was t h e one who k i l l e d This a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t of defendant t o Kountz d i d n o t become known t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s u n t i l n e a r l y f i v e y e a r s a f t e r t h e homicide when, f o r some reason n o t explained a t t h e t r i a l , Kountz gave a statement t o t h e county a t t o r n e y on January 3 , 1970. One o t h e r w i t n e s s appeared a t t h e t r i a l who had n o t appeared and given testimony during t h e 1965 i n v e s t i g a t i o n . That w i t n e s s was Mrs. J u d i t h Veltkamp, who had been employed i n 1964 a s a g r o c e r y checker a t t h e B u t t r e y S t o r e where defendant worked a s a box boy and a l s o s t a c k e d s h e l v e s . This w i t n e s s , t h e w i f e o f a l o c a l p o l i c e s e r g e a n t , gave t h e county a t t o r n e y a s t a t e m e n t i n January 1970, which s t a t e m e n t focused a d d i t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n on defendant. She t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l t h a t between t h e hours of 12:OO and 12:30 p.m. on December 23, 1964, s h e had t h e following c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h defendant a t t h e B u t t r e y S t o r e : He had come i n from t a k i n g o u t a n o r d e r of "A. g r o c e r i e s and he s a i d , 'They have j u s t found a g i r l t h a t has been drugged t o death. ' "Q. What d i d you s a y ? s a i d 'No, dragged. I A. I said rugged?' and h e "Q. What d i d you s a y t o t h a t ? A . I s a i d , 'Where was i t ? ' and h e s a i d , 1 O a county road. I n "Q. And what d i d you say? A. I asked him who i t was. "Q. What d i d he s a y t o t h a t ? A . W s a i d t h a t i t was e Bobbi C l a r k , and I asked him i f h e knew h e r and h e s a i d yes. "Q. While t h e Defendant was r e l a t i n g t h i s t o you, d i d he speak c l e a r l y ? A . No. "Q. Do you r e c a l l how he spoke? nervous and e x c i t e d . A. He, he was extremely -- "Q. Did he s t u t t e r a t a l l ? A . Yes, h e a c t e d l i k e h i s tongue was t o o b i g f o r h i s mouth. He c o u l d n ' t g e t t h e words o u t . Q . Did t h e Defendant r e l a t e a n y t h i n g e l s e t o you I asked him how h e during t h i s conversation? A . found o u t a b o u t t h i s and h e s a i d , ' I h e a r d i t on t h e c a r r a d i o when I t o o k t h e l a d y ' s g r o c e r i e s o u t . 1 1 ' According t o t h e t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by t h e c o r o n e r , t h e s h e r i f f , and o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s , n o p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f ic a t i o n o f Bobbi C l a r k was made o r announced u n t i l a f t e r 6:00 p.m. t h a t day, December 2 3 . Recognizing t h e above i n c r i m i n a t o r y f a c t s developed a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t a t t h e t r i a l , , we, a s was t h e j u r y , a r e f a c e d with a case that is largely circumstantial. Almost f i v e y e a r s passed between t h e f i n d i n g o f Bobbi ~ l a r p s body and t h e f i l i n g of a n I n f o r m a t i o n c h a r g i n g d e f e n d a n t w i t h murder i n t h e f i r s t degree. Another s i x months passed b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t went t o W s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t e t h e s e f a c t o r s because of t h e d i s e trial. crepancies i n statements given during the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n e a r l y 1965, and t h o s e g i v e n a t t h e t r i a l , a s w e l l a s t h e f a c t t h a t a change o f p e r s o n n e l had t a k e n p l a c e i n t h e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s o f G a l l a t i n County, i . e . t h e county a t t o r n e y and s h e r i f f . Defendant r a i s e s s i x i s s u e s on a p p e a l . 1) The c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g a c o n t i n u a n c e . 2) The c o u r t e r r e d i n t h a t i t should have d i s q u a l i f i e d i t s e l f f o r c a u s e and t h e motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f judge s h o u l d have been g r a n t e d . 3) The c o u r t made p r e j u d i c i a l comments. 4) The evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e v e r d i c t . 5) The admission of defendant's 6) The c o u r t unduly l i m i t e d c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . s t a t e m e n t was e r r o r . W f i n d t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e t o be I s s u e 5 , t h e t r i a l e c o u r f s admission i n t o e v i d e n c e o f d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d v o l u n t a r y s t a t e m e n t g i v e n on February 2 , 1965, which a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t had been t a p e d and t h e n t r a n s c r i b e d . i n t h e t y p e w r i t t e n form. A t t r i a l , t h e s t a t e m e n t was I n view o f o u r f i n d i n g t h a t s u c h a d - m i s s i o n was p r e j u d i c i a l , t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s i t a t i n g a new t r i a l , we w i l l f o c u s o u r d i s c u s s i o n on I s s u e 5 , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t on r e t r i a l I s s u e s 1, 2 , 3 , and 4 , i f t h e y a r e i s s u e s , ought n o t t o a r i s e . W w i l l b r i e f l y comment on I s s u e 6 l a t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n . e Issue 5. It i s t h e d u t y o f t h i s Court t o a s c e r t a i n whether o r n o t e r r o r s made a t t r i a l a r e p r e j u d i c i a l , f o r o n l y upon such p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r s may a c a s e be r e t u r n e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t for retrial. S t a t e v. T o t t e r d e l l , 135 Mont. 56, 336 P.2d 696. W r e c o g n i z e t h e i n s t a n t c a s e was a most d i f f i c u l t one t h a t took e many days o f t r i a l and l i k e t h e rec,ord of most extended t r i a l s , i t c o u l d h a r d l y be f r e e o f e r r o r . A s we n o t e d i n S t a t e v . Cor, 144 Mont. 323, 340, 396 P.2d 86: "Our C o n s t i t u t i o n s , b o t h F e d e r a l and S t a t e , g u a r a n t e e a f a i r t r i a l , n o t a p e r f e c t one. I t Here, t h e t r i a l judge recognized t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t h e q u e s t i o n b e f o r e him when h e r u l e d t o admit t h e s t a t e m e n t : "COURT: T h i s i s a d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n and I am w e l l aware o f t h e v a r i o u s c a s e s , l e a d i n g and o t h e r w i s e , and I t h i n k t h e t e s t i s whether o r n o t i t was v o l u n t a r y and I t h i n k when you g e t r i g h t down t o i t - - and t h a t i s what i t i s , because a l l o f t h e n i c e t i e s t h a t t h e judges and lawyers a r e i n c l i n e d t o embroider t h e r u l e w i t h , i f we f o l l o w t o i t s u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n , perhaps no v o l u n t a r y s t a t e m e n t can e v e r be used a g a i n s t a n accused u n l e s s it i s made i n open c o u r t and maybe t h a t i s t h e way i t should be; I am n o t s a y i n g t h a t t h a t i s . P e r s o n a l l y , I doubt i t , b u t I t h i n k I have r e a d t h i s s t a t e m e n t and a t i t s very most i t i s admissions. Whether t h e y a r e a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t o r n o t , I am n o t a t a l l s u r e about t h a t . The i d e a l s i t u a t i o n would b e , a s M r . Moses i n d i c a t e d , t h e i n t e r v i e w was taped a f t e r thorough warning and a d v i c e of a l l your c o n s t i t u t i o n a 1 r i g h t s and then a t r a n s c r i p t i o n of t h e i n t e r v i e w and then a c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e a c t u a l t a p e and t h e i n t e r v i e w and than a r e t e n t i o n of t h e t a p e f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n f o r t h o s e such a s M r . Moses and h i s c l i e n t . But, I suppose we have t o d e a l w i t h t h e p r a c t i c a l i t i e s of l i f e and i t has five years. been a long time -- 1l I am going t o admit i t . I have thought about i t q u i t e a l i t t l e b i t s i n c e t h e noon r e c e s s and your o b j e c t i o n may be a r e v e r s a b l e one but I d o n ' t think so. I think t h i s is a voluntary statement. "Here i s a man who was a d v i s e d of h i s r i g h t s . I t h i n k i t i s on page 26. It s o r t o f u n d e r l i n e s t h e very t h i n g t h a t I have t o assume without any t h a t t h i s witness is t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h hesitancy and he has s a i d t h a t he a d v i s e d him of t h e s e r i g h t s and then he says f a r t h e r along on t h e i n t e r v i e w , almost two-thirds of t h e way through he s a i d , I Again, l i k e we s a i d b e f o r e , you know you d o n ' t have t o a n s 111 wer t h e s e q u e s t i o n s -- --- . I n s o r u l i n g , t h e c o u r t r e l i e d upon S t a t e v. Stevens, 60 Mont. 390, 199 P . 256, which h e l d t h a t admissions a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t a r e always competent without foundation. T h i s Court has long recognized t h a t admissions a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t a r e admiss i b l e , but t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of such admissions must be e s t a b lished. S t a t e v. Zachmeier, 151 Mont. 256, 441 P.2d 737. The "foundation" r e f e r r e d t o i n Stevens went t o t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of t h e admission, and a s such i s n o t r e l e v a n t . Here, no one t e s t i - f i e d a s t o t h e accuracy of t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n of t h e t a p e s which were e i t h e r l o s t o r d e s t r o y e d sometime between t h e time of t h e t a k i n g o f t h e s t a t e m e n t and t h e time of t r i a l . There was no way t o t e s t t h e accuracy of t h e s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r than t h e memory of M r . Burleigh A l l e n , t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r . M r . A l l e n t e s t i f i e d he had n o t heard t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g ; y e t some f i v e y e a r s l a t e r he believed i t t o be t h e same. A t t h e time of t h e admission of t h e s t a t e m e n t , counsel f o r defendant argued t o t h e c o u r t t h a t b e f o r e such a taped i n t e r view can be admitted t h a t i "* * * a person [must] t e s t i f y t h a t t h a t taped i n t e r v i e w was heard by him and compared w i t h t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n i n w r i t i n g [ s o ] t h a t he can then be i n a p o s i t i o n t o l a y a foundation t o s a y t h a t t h a t which appears i n w r i t i n g i s e x a c t l y t h e same, l e t t e r f o r l e t t e r , word f o r word, t h a t t h e r e have been no changes, no a l t e r a t i o n s , no m i s t a k e s , and t h a t n o t h i n g appears but a n a c t u a l a c c u r a t e reproduct i o n of t h a t t a p e recording. "This w i t n e s s has t e s t i f i e d , of c o u r s e , t h a t he has n o t heard t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g and he j u s t bel i e v e s i t i s t h e same and we cannot t e l l o r do n o t know whether t h e r e were any p a r t s t h a t may have been l e f t o u t o r any e r r o r s i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n and u n l e s s a foundation i s l a i d i n t h a t r e s p e c t , Your Honor, c e r t a i n l y we a r e j u s t guessing a s t o i t s accuracy and i n t h a t r e s p e c t we t h i n k no foundat i o n has been l a i d . ' ' Counsel f o r defendant was s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e c t i n s t a t i n g t h e law t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e c o u r t should have e i t h e r r e q u i r e d f u r t h e r foundation o r denied t h e s t a t e m e n t . L a t e r , i n d e f e n d a n t ' s cross-examination of M r . A l l e n a f t e r t h e s t a t e m e n t had been a d m i t t e d , i t was r e v e a l e d : t h a t a f t e r de- fendant gave t h e s t a t e m e n t o t h e r i n t e r v i e w s were had w i t h def e n d a n t ; t h a t a d d i t i o n s and c o r r e c t i o n s were made t o t h e s t a t e m e n t given on February 2 ; t h a t no t a p e s were made of t h e s e unnumbered i n t e r v i e w s nor do t h e a d d i t i o n s and c o r r e c t i o n s made t o t h e February 2 statement appear on t h e copy of t h e s t a t e m e n t i n t r o duced a t t r i a l . The s t a t e argues t h a t even though t h e t a p e was n o t i n t r o duced, t h a t t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n was a d m i s s i b l e a s a b u s i n e s s r e c o r d , r e l y i n g upon s e c t i o n 93-801-2, R.C.M. 1947: "Proof of b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s . A record of a n a c t , condition or event, s h a l l , i n s o f a r a s relevant, be competent evidence i f t h e c u s t o d i a n o r o t h e r q u a l i f i e d w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e s t o i t s i d e n t i t y and t h e mode of i t s p r e p a r a t i o n , and i f i t was made i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s , a t o r n e a r t h e time of t h e a c t , c o n d i t i o n o r e v e n t , and i f , i n t h e opinion o f t h e c o u r t , t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , method and time o f p r e p a r a t i o n were such a s t o j u s t i f y i t s admission." The s t a t e c i t e s S t a t e v. Meyer, 37 Wash.2d 759, 226 P.2d 204, a s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e admission of a t y p e w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t without t h e t a p e . 93-801-2, R.C.M. facts. Washington has a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o s e c t i o n 1947. Meyer i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e There, a mentally incompetent female . was admitted t o a h o s p i t a l where s h e had p r e v i o u s l y been a p a t i e n t . In i t s regular c o u r s e o f business t h e h o s p i t a l k e p t c l i n i c a l r e c o r d s of i t s p a t e n t s , and i n t h e making o f h e r record one of t h e s t a f f i n t e r viewed t h e p a t i e n t some t e n days a f t e r h e r admission. P a r t of t h e i n t e r v i e w of q u e s t i o n s and answers was recorded on a Sounds c r i b e r and t h e r e a f t e r t r a n s c r i b e d by a t y p i s t . record was destroyed. The Soundscriber Although t h e t y p i s t who t r a n s c r i b e d t h e s t a t e m e n t d i d n o t t e s t i f y , one of t h e h o s p i t a l p h y s i c i a n s , who had asked t h e q u e s t i o n s , i d e n t i f i e d t h e s t a t e m e n t a s p a r t of t h e c l i n i c a l record of t h e p a t i e n t . I n Meyer, t h e c o u r t allowed t h e q u e s t i o n s and answers t o be read a s p o r t r a y i n g t h e s t a t e of mind of t h e p a t i e n t . The Washington Supreme Court allowed t h e s t a t e m e n t i n t o evidence, n o t i n g t h a t t h e s t a t u t e gave t h e c o u r t wide d i s c r e t i o n and, t o o , t h a t t h e evidence was n o t a p a r t of t h e s t a t e ' s c a s e , b u t a r o s e on cross-examination of one cf t h e h o s p i t a l s t a f f c a l l e d a s a witness by t h e defendant. Such a r e n o t t h e f a c t s h e r e . While we a r e n o t concerned w i t h sound recordings i n t h i s c a s e and a r e concerned only w i t h t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e r e c o r d i n g , n e v e r t h e l e s s we w i l l d i s c u s s recordings g e n e r a l l y . Sound r e - cordings a r e a d m i s s i b l e i n both c i v i l and c r i m i n a l c a s e s where t h e recording i s both m a t e r i a ' l and r e l e v e n t t o t h e i s s u e s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and a proper foundation i s l a i d . That foundation must be a s i s s e t f o r t h i n 58 ALR2d 1024, A d m i s s i b i l i t y of Sound Recordings i n Evidence, ยง 2 , pp. 1027, 1028: 1F The c a s e s a r e i n g e n e r a l agreement a s t o what c o n s t i t u t e s a proper foundation f o r t h e admission of a sound r e c o r d i n g . They a l s o i n d i c a t e a reasona b l y s t r i c t adherence t o t h e r u l e s p r e s c r i b e d f o r t e s t i n g t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of r e c o r d i n g s , which have been o u t l i n e d a s follows: (1) a showing t h a t t h e recording d e v i c e was capable of t a k i n g testimony, (2) a showing t h a t t h e o p e r a t o r of t h e d e v i c e was competent, (3) e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a u t h e n t i c i t y and c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e r e c o r d i n g , (4) a showing t h a t changes, a d d i t i o n s , o r d e l e t i o n s have n o t been made, (5) a showing of t h e manner of t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d i n g , (6) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h e s p e a k e r s , (7) a showing t h a t t h e testimony e l i c i t e d was volunt a r i l y made without any kind o f inducement." The above foundation c r i t e r i a has been adhered t o w i t h minor v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e following c a s e s : S t a t e v. Baca, 82 N.M. 144, 477 P.2d 320; S t a t e v. Hendricks, (Mo. 1970), 456 S.W.2d 11; P a r n e l l v. S t a t e , ( F l a . 1969), 218 So.2d 535; Cummings v. J e s s Edwards, I n c . , (Tex. 1969), 445 S.W.2d 767; Kruse v. Coos Head Timber Company, 248 Ore. 294, 432 P.2d 1009; S t a t e v. D r i v e r , 38 N . J . 255, 183 A.2d 655. See a l s o 64 Harvard Law Revnew 1369. The c r i t e r i a f o r t h e foundation f o r admission of t a p e s or records a r e s p e c i f i c . Where a t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s Lncroduced along w i t h t h e r e c o r d , and a proper foundation has been l a i d f o r t h e record i t w i l l be a d m i s s i b l e , f o r t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n can be compared w i t h t h e r e c o r d o r tape. There a r e some c a s e s where only t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n of t h e r e c o r d i n g has been o f f e r e d and though o b j e c t e d t o on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n i s n o t t h e b e s t evidence, c o u r t s have admitted t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n where a proper foundation was l a i d f o r t h e admission. Applebaum v. Applebaum, 84 N.Y.S.2d 505 (1948); McGuire v. S t a t e , 200 Md. 601, 92 A.2d 582 (1952). However, i n S t a t e v . Baca, 82 N.M. 144, 477 P.2d 320, a p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s n o t e s t h a t had been t r a n s c r i b e d from a t a p e recorded i n t e r v i e w between t h e defendant and t h e informer were h e l d i n a d m i s s i b l e due t o f a i l u r e t o l a y a proper foundation Eor both t h e r e c o r d i n g i t s e l f and t h e subsequent t r a n s c r i p t i o n . That i s p r e c i s e l y t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n h e r e , except under our f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n t h e t a p e is missing o r destroyed. This l o s s a r d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e t a p e o r record h a s , i n t h e few c a s e s we have found from o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , r a i s e d t h e b e s t evidence r u l e o b j e c t i o n , and where admission has been allowed i t has only been a f t e r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n has proven t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of t h e t r a n s cription--that i s , a f t e r l a y i n g t h e proper foundation a s t o t h e accuracy o f t h e secondary evidence following t h e g u i d e l i n e s s e t f o r t h i n 58 ALR2d 1024, h e r e t o f o r e quoted. W f i n d t h e circumstances i n t h i s c a s e c l e a r l y show e t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t should n o t have been admitted and t h a t p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r occurred when i t was admitted. F i n a l l y , we w i l l d i s c u s s d e f e n d a n t ' s I s s u e 6 which r e l a t e s t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t unduly r e s t r i c t e d h i s cross-examination. E x h i b i t #40, Bobbi lark's watch, had been accepted i n t o evidence t o show e i t h e r t h e time of d e a t h o r t h e time t h e body was run over o u t on Cottonwood Road. On cross-examination of L.D.W. Anderson, deputy s h e r i f f a t t h e time of t h e homocide, d e f e n d a n t ' s counsel asked t h e following quest ion : Now, w i l l you t e l l t h i s c o u r t and j u r y whether you have been a b l e t o f i n d any connect i o n of t h a t proposed e x h i b i t #40, t h e watch, w i t h Archie Warwick?" "Q. Objection was made by t h e county a t t o r n e y a s follows: "MR. ANDERSON: That i s o b j e c t e d t o a s invading t h e province of t h e c o u r t and j u r y and c a l l i n g f o r a conclusion of t h i s w i t n e s s . 1 1 A f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n between c o u r t and c o u n s e l , t h e o b j e c t i o n was s u s t a i n e d . Upon r e t r i a l , should t h i s q u e s t i o n be asked, t h e c o u r t should permit i t t o be answered. It follows from what has been s a i d t h a t t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e defendant should be r e v e r s e d and t h e cause remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o g r a n t a new t r i a l . It i s s o ordered. il 1 ssociate ~ u s t i c e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
