Ex parte Fuller
Decision Date | 16 April 1993 |
Citation | 620 So.2d 675 |
Parties | Ex parte Alan Andrew FULLER. (Re Allan Andrew Fuller v. State). 1 1910796. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Paul M. Hardin and Anthony J. Bishop, Evergreen, for petitioner.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In Alan Andrew Fuller's trial, the court admitted into evidence an audio recording of an alleged confession. He was convicted, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction; we granted certiorari review to determine whether the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals relating to the foundation to be laid for the admission of sound recordings is consistent with other cases decided by that court. While we find inconsistencies in the opinions of that court, we conclude that the court reached the correct result in this case; therefore, we affirm.
Fuller was arrested, indicted, and tried in Monroe County in relation to the death of Joe Floyd. Apparently, Fuller and Floyd were best friends and, on the day of Floyd's death, they had argued over whether Floyd had informed Fuller's wife that Fuller had taken Valium on a particular occasion. Fuller maintained that he shot Floyd in self-defense.
After Fuller's arrest, and while Fuller was in custody, he made a full statement to police officers. The statement was recorded on an audio cassette tape. At trial, Fuller's attorney objected to the State's attempt to admit the tape recording into evidence, arguing that the State had not laid the proper foundation for its admission, and, further, that the tape was not sufficiently audible. 2 After hearing in camera the tape and testimony from one of the police officers, the trial court overruled Fuller's objection, allowed the prosecution to play the tape for the jury, and admitted the tape into evidence. The jury convicted Fuller of manslaughter; the trial court sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Fuller's conviction; the court held that the prosecution had established a proper predicate for admitting the cassette tape and further held that any audibility problem would go to the weight accorded the evidence by the jury and not to its admissibility.
Fuller correctly asserts that caselaw from the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts as to the proper predicate for a taped sound recording. In its opinion in this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals quotes Jackson v. State, 582 So.2d 598 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), for the proposition that "all that is required [to admit sound recordings into evidence] is to show that the recordings are 'reliable representations of the subject sound.' " Fuller v. State, 620 So.2d 669, 672 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Moreover, Jackson points out that in Molina v. State, 533 So.2d 701 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1086, 109 S.Ct. 1547, 103 L.Ed.2d 851 (1989), the Court of Criminal Appeals changed the requirements for a proper predicate from the seven-prong test set out in Voudrie v. State, 387 So.2d 248 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 387 So.2d 256 (Ala.1980) 3 to the "reliable representation" standard. However, in Carraway v. State, 583 So.2d 993 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 583 So.2d 997 (Ala.1991), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the seven-prong Voudrie test applied to admission of sound recordings while the "reliable representation" standard applied to admission of videotape recordings. We note also, however, that in Carraway, Judge Bowen expressed the opinion that Molina had changed the required predicate to "reliable representation" for both sound and videotape recordings. Carraway, 583 So.2d at 997 (Bowen, J., concurring in the result, joined by Taylor, J.). In short, there is a conflict as to exactly which standard applies to the admission of sound recordings: the "reliable representation" standard or the seven-prong Voudrie test. We hold that either standard may apply, depending on the circumstances of a given case.
Traditionally, courts and commentators analyzing the issue of the admissibility of sound recordings, photographs, motion pictures, videotape recordings, maps, and diagrams have treated all these items in the same manner. See 3 James H. Chadbourn, Wigmore on Evidence, § 790 (1970 & Supp.1991); 2 John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 214 (1992); William A. Schroeder, et al., Alabama Evidence, § 11-3 (1987 & Supp.1988); F.M. English, Annotation, Admissibility of Sound Recordings in Evidence, 58 A.L.R.2d 1024 (1958); and see, International UAW-CIO v. Russell, 264 Ala. 456, 470, 88 So.2d 175, 186 (1956) ( ); National States Ins. Co. v. Jones, 393 So.2d 1361, 1366 (Ala.1980) (discussing tape recordings); and C.P. Robbins & Associates v. Stevens, 53 Ala.App. 432, 437, 301 So.2d 196, 200-01 (1974) (discussing tape recordings). In fact, in National States Insurance, this Court stated, 393 So.2d at 1367.
There are two theories upon which photographs, motion pictures, videotapes, sound recordings, and the like are analyzed for admission into evidence: the "pictorial communication" or "pictorial testimony" theory and the "silent witness" theory. Wigmore, supra, § 790; McCormick, supra, § 214; and Schroeder, supra § 11-3. The "pictorial communication" theory is that a photograph, etc., is merely a graphic portrayal or static expression of what a qualified and competent witness sensed at the time in question. Wigmore, supra, § 790, and McCormick, supra, § 214. The "silent witness" theory is that a photograph, etc., is admissible, even in the absence of an observing or sensing witness, because the process or mechanism by which the photograph, etc., is made ensures reliability and trustworthiness. In essence, the process or mechanism substitutes for the witness's senses, and because the process or mechanism is explained before the photograph, etc., is admitted, the trust placed in its truthfulness comes from the proposition that, had a witness been there, the witness would have sensed what the photograph, etc., records. Wigmore, supra, § 790, and McCormick, supra, § 214.
A reasonable reading of Voudrie, Carraway, Molina, and the more recent caselaw of the Court of Criminal Appeals 4 leads us to conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals is of the opinion that the "pictorial communication" and "silent witness" theories are mutually exclusive theories, rather than alternative theories. The proper foundation required for admission into evidence of a sound recording or other medium by which a scene or event is recorded (e.g., a photograph, motion picture, videotape, etc.) depends upon the particular circumstances. If there is no qualified and competent witness who can testify that the sound recording or other medium accurately and reliably represents what he or she sensed at the time in question, then the "silent witness" foundation must be laid. Under the "silent witness" theory, a witness must explain how the process or mechanism that created the item works and how the process or mechanism ensures reliability. When the "silent witness" theory is used, the party seeking to have the sound recording or other medium admitted into evidence must meet the seven-prong Voudrie test. Rewritten to have more general application, the Voudrie standard requires:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...kind of coercion or improper inducement.’ " Spradley v. State, 128 So. 3d 774, 780-82 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Ex parte Fuller, 620 So. 2d 675, 678 (Ala. 1993) ).Surveillance videos may be admissible under the pictorial-communication theory or the silent-witness theory. Id. at 782. H......
-
Petersen v. State
...or the sounds recorded and that the item offered accurately and reliably represents the actual scene or sounds." Ex parte Fuller, 620 So. 2d 675, 677–79 (Ala. 1993) (footnote omitted). In the present case, the State laid a proper predicate for admitting the videotape-security footage in que......
-
Woodward v. State
...a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication "conforming with the requirements of this rule." In Ex parte Fuller, 620 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1993), the Alabama Supreme Court explained the two methods for laying the foundation for the admissibility of sound recordings, videot......
-
Grayson v. State
...[at] 1218. The trial court's ruling was not "manifestly wrong."' "Fuller v. State, 620 So.2d 669, 672 (Ala. Cr.App.1991), affirmed, 620 So.2d 675 (Ala.1993). "Furthermore, the appellant's claim of intoxication, without evidence that it had reached the stage of mania, is simply a matter to b......
-
Digital Eyewitnesses: Using New Technologies to Authenticate Evidence in Human Rights Litigation.
...1003, 1005-06 (A.C.M.R. 1983); United States v. Reichart, 31 M.J. 521, 523-24 (A.C.M.R. 1990) (per curiam). (151.) See Ex parte Fuller, 620 So. 2d 675, 678 (Ala. 1993) (applying a seven-factor analysis); Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827, 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (applying a five-factor......
-
SILENT NO MORE: HOW DEEPFAKES WILL FORCE COURTS TO RECONSIDER VIDEO ADMISSION STANDARDS.
...and the video was not tampered with prior to trial, it could not be admitted into evidence. Id. at 573-74. See also Ex parte Fuller, 620 So. 2d 675, 679 (Ala. 1993) (providing an example of questioning that appropriately laid the foundation for the pictorial evidence theory). The prosecutio......