People v. Frison, Docket No. 7196
| Decision Date | 30 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 7196,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther FRISON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James C. Kotwick, Sterling Heights, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., George N. Parris, Pros. Atty., Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Don L. Milbourn, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and ROOD, * JJ.
After trial by jury, defendant Luther Frison was convicted of second-degree murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.317 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.549). This appeal, as of right, raises a single evidentiary issue.
At trial a tape recording of a police interrogation of defendant was played before the jury. When it appeared that background noise on the tape made understanding the recording difficult, the trial court, with the concurrence of counsel, permitted a prior transcript of the recording to be read. This reading was made subject to the replaying of the tape in the event of possible objections. After the transcript was read, defendant requested that the tape be replayed in order to clarify one statement. This was done and the trial proceeded without further objection. Defendant now argues that the tape was so unintelligible as to constitute its admission reversible error.
Sound recordings, if relating to otherwise competent evidence, are admissible provided a foundation is laid for their admission. Boyne City, G. & A.R. Co. v. Anderson (1906), 146 Mich. 328, 109 N.W. 429; 58 A.L.R.2d 1024, 1027. See, also, 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 436, p 494. The requirements necessary for a proper foundation were detailed in People v. Taylor (1969), 18 Mich.App. 381, 383, 384, 171 N.W.2d 219, 220:
"(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony, (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent, (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording, (4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made, (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording, (6) identification of the speakers, and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement."
Our review of the record in the instant case reveals that the prosecution met all of the above requirements.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Parker
...rules of Taylor are flexible enough to meet the facts and circumstances of a given case is demonstrated by People v. Frison,25 Mich.App. 146, 181 N.W.2d 75 (1970), in which this Court held that a tape containing background noise that made understanding the recording difficult was not so uni......
-
McKinney v. Burt
...as to be inadmissible as a matter of law. See People v. Karalia, 35 Mich App 541, 545-546; 192 NW2d 676 (1971); People v. Frison, 25 Mich App 146, 147-148; 181 NW2d 75 (1970). Moreover, we note that in allowing the recordings to be played, the trial court carefully instructed the jury to us......
-
Com. v. Watson
...confession "is to be commended as of inestimable value to triers of fact in reaching accurate conclusions"); People v. Frison, 25 Mich.App. 146, 147-148, 181 N.W.2d 75 (1970); Sanders v. State, 237 Miss. 772, 115 So.2d 145 (1959); State v. Perkins, 355 Mo. 851, 859, 198 S.W.2d 704 (1946); S......
-
State v. Harris
...evidence. People v. Vetri, 178 Cal.App.2d 385, 2 Cal.Rptr. 795 (1960); Gomien v. State, 172 So.2d 511 (Fla.1965); People v. Frison, 25 Mich.App. 146, 181 N.W.2d 75 (1970); State v. Myers, 190 Neb. 146, 206 N.W.2d 851 (1973); State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255, 183 A.2d 655 (1962); Wilson v. State......