Edwards v. State
| Citation | 551 S.W.2d 731 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53424,53424 |
| Parties | Mike EDWARDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
BROWN, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction for barratry under V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 38.12. Appellant was tried before a jury and punishment was assessed by the court at ninety days in the Harris County Jail.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. Briefly stated, the record shows that appellant contacted Gail Stevens about the possibility of prosecuting a claim Miss Stevens had for injuries to her back. Appellant represented to Miss Stevens that she had a good cause of action for her injuries and told her that he would supply her with an attorney who would handle her law suit for a contingency fee. Miss Stevens and her father notified the Harris County District Attorney's office about the incident and they agreed to permit an investigator to make tape recordings of subsequent conversations with appellant during which he arranged for a meeting between Miss Stevens and the attorney.
In three grounds of error appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a tape recording made at Miss Stevens' apartment. It is appellant's contention that the State failed to lay the proper predicate for the introduction of the tape recording. Ground of error one alleges a failure to show "that the recording device was capable of taking testimony." Ground of error two alleges a failure to show "that the operator of the device was competent." Ground of error three alleges that the voices on the tape were not identified.
This Court has not yet established what constitutes a proper foundation for the admission of a sound recording, although such recordings have generally been admitted. See Thrush v. State, 515 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Yates v. State, 509 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Hutson v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 296 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Cr.App.1956).
Appellant relies on Cummings v. Jess Edwards, Inc., 445 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.) which sets out a seven-pronged predicate recommended in 58 A.L.R.2d 1024, "Admissibility of sound recordings in evidence," Sec. 2, pp. 1027-8, as follows:
The Cummings decision and an earlier decision by this Court, Schwartz v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 171, 246 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Cr.App.1952), both indicate that the admission of tape recordings is discretionary with the trial court.
We hold that the requirements as set out above are applicable in criminal trials as well. However, we also find that at least some of the requirements can be inferred from the testimony and need not be shown with the same particularity required for admission of other mechanically acquired evidence, such as the results of a breathalyzer test.
For example, if a person who is in a position to hear a conversation testifies that he made a tape recording of that conversation and that he had listened to the tape recording and found it to coincide with what he heard the parties say, then it goes without saying that the recording device was "capable of taking testimony" and that the "operator of the device was competent." The voluntary nature of the conversation can also be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. Admission of the results of a breathalyzer, on the other hand, requires a more specific statement that the device was maintained properly, contained the proper compound of chemicals, and that the operator was properly trained. Bumpus v. State, 509 S.W.2d 359 (Tex.Cr.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thoma, In re
...therefore, the proponent need not establish each of them in detail. Seymour v. Gillespie, 608 S.W.2d at 897; see also Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). When a proper predicate is laid and there are no fundamental problems, the trial court can, in its discretion, admit ta......
-
State v. Hernandez
...to counsel alone. It further found that the taped recording had been altered and did not meet the requirements of Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). The State agrees that the tape is inadmissible. It, however utilizes its limited right of appeal, urging in a single point ......
-
Bates v. State
...required for admission of other mechanically acquired evidence, such as the results of a breathalyzer test." Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Without indulging in a detailed recitation of Fontenot's testimony, we merely observe that he established each of the seven elemen......
-
Huffman v. State
...that the film accurately and correctly depicted appellant's appearance and demeanor at the time it was taken. In Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), this Court adopted a seven prong test for the admission of sound recordings. See also Bates v. State, 587 S.W.2d 121, 131 (Tex......
-
Evidence
...the possession of the defendant or a co-defendant). Angleton. The seven-prong test of admissibility of tapes set out in Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) has been specifically disavowed as resulting in unwarranted confusion for practitioners, trial courts and appellate......
-
Evidence
...the possession of the defendant or a co-defendant). Angleton. The seven-prong test of admissibility of tapes set out in Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) has been specifically disavowed as resulting in unwarranted confusion for practitioners, trial courts and appellate......
-
Evidence
...the possession of the defendant or a co-defendant). Angleton. The seven-prong test of admissibility of tapes set out in Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) has been specifically disavowed as resulting in unwarranted confusion for practitioners, trial courts and appellate......
-
Evidence
...the possession of the defendant or a co-defendant). Angleton. The seven-prong test of admissibility of tapes set out in Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) has been specifically disavowed as resulting in unwarranted confusion for practitioners, trial courts and appellate......