People v. Odneal
| Decision Date | 31 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 26889,26889 |
| Citation | 559 P.2d 230,192 Colo. 382 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Eugene ODNEAL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert L. Russel, Dist. Atty., Jon C. Thomas, Deputy Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Clinton M. Cole, R. Dennis Lambrecht, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellant.
Appellant William Eugene Odneal appeals his conviction for attempted receipt of stolen property, section 18--4--401, C.R.S.1973. 1 We find that prejudicial error occurred, and we therefore reverse appellant's conviction and remand for a new trial.
Appellant, a former Colorado Springs police officer, owned and operated two pawn shops in that city. On August 27, 1973, David Belanger entered one of appellant's pawn shops. He and appellant retired to an office located near the back of the store. There, Belanger produced a diamond ring which he asked appellant to buy. Belanger testified that he told appellant the ring was stolen. After some discussion, appellant bought the ring for $200. Within five minutes after Belanger left the store, appellant was placed under arrest.
Unknown to appellant, Belanger was acting at the direction of the Colorado Springs Police Department. The police had instructed Belanger to represent the ring as stolen and attempt to sell it to appellant. Sergeant Mays had concealed a transmitter microphone and antenna on Belanger's person. The purpose of this device was to transmit Belanger's conversation with appellant to Sergeants Short and Mays, who were in an unmarked police surveillance vehicle parked across the street. They monitored the conversation while a battery-powered cassette tape recorder purported to record it. Sergeant Thiede, stationed at the rear of the store, also monitored the conversation by radio, but admittedly did not hear all of it.
Both during the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress the tape recording and at trial, the officers involved testified that the tape was neither complete nor wholly intelligible. Sergeant Short testified that static from other radios, vehicle traffic, and ignition noise obliterated statements by appellant and Belanger. Sergeant Mays cited neon signs and the sound of a mynah bird in the background as causing interference which occurred, in his words, 'quite often.'
An electronics expert, who was experienced in recording and editing tapes, testified as to the causes of the recording deficiencies in the tape recording. He estimated that fifty percent of the tape was usable and the other fifty percent was in the 'gray area.' Neither Short nor Mays made notes of the conversation as they heard it. Sergeant Thiede testified to a great deal of background noise and admitted that he did not monitor the entire conversation.
The trial judge personally listened to the tape to evaluate it. In ruling on the motion to suppress, the court found '* * * Parts of the conversation are blurred and parts of the tape are inaudible and unintelligible due in part by what I understand to be city utility trucks, transmitters located in the vicinity, and, also, by reason of engines of passing motorists.' The court then ruled:
'I think the defendant presents a strong case * * * that the tape is too blurred and unintelligible to be presented to the jury, and that certain material portions may be omitted which they would not be able to hear, of this purported conversation, and, for that reason, the Court is going to sustain their objection to the tape being admitted on the People's case in chief, because of that fact.'
The court reserved ruling on whether the tape could be used for impeachment.
Early in the trial when the district attorney reoffered the tape in evidence, the court repeated its ruling, and later excluded a purported transcript of the tape on the same grounds, allowing its use only to refresh recollection.
The uncontroverted evidence at trial established that at the time of the alleged offense the Colorado Springs Police Department had requested all pawnbrokers to attempt to detain people whom they suspected of selling stolen goods and then call the police. Failing that, the pawnbrokers were instructed to buy the goods and then notify the police. Appellant had followed this procedure on several other occasions and claimed he had intended to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alonzi v. People
...was laid, the inaudibility of large segments of the taped conversations rendered the recording inadmissible under People v. Odneal, 192 Colo. 382, 559 P.2d 230 (1977). We As we stated in Odneal, tapes which are inherently unreliable for the purpose for which they are offered are inadmissibl......
-
State v. Treadwell, 49082
...See United States v. Frazier, 479 F.2d 983 (2nd Cir. 1973); People v. Velella, 28 Misc.2d 579, 216 N.Y.S.2d 488; and People v. Odneal, 559 P.2d 230 (Colo.1977). In our present case the unrecorded intervals in the tape were explained to the satisfaction of the trial court. The sentences in t......
-
The People Of The State Of Colorado, Petitioner-appellee,in The Interest Of A.D.T., Juvenile-appellant., 09CA0848.
...that is of insufficient quality. To the contrary, it may be error for the court to admit such a recording. See People v. Odneal 192 Colo. 382, 385, 559 P.2d 230, 232 (1977) (“ ‘Should the garbled portions be so substantial, in view of the purpose for which the tapes are offered, as to rende......
- Hollinger v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co.
-
Discovery and Admissibility of Sound Recordings and Their Transcripts
...is received. 14. Supra, note 10 at 1332. 15. See, United States v. Brinklow, 560 F.2d 1008, 1011 (10th Cir. 1977); and People v. Odneal, 192 Colo. 382, 385, 559 P.2d 230, 232 (1977); People v. Alonzi, 40 Colo.App. 507, 510, 580 P.2d 1263, 1266 (1978). 16. Odneal, supra, note 15 at 231. 17. ......