Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Failure to State On The Record The Basis For Objection to Admission of Evidence Leads to Failed Plain Error Challenge on Appeal

State v. Campbell, Minn.S.Ct., 3/18/2015.  A jury found Mr. Campbell guilty of first degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang, along with several riffs on that top count.  The trial court sentenced Mr. Campbell to life in prison without possibility of release.  Justice Page, writing for the entire court, affirms that conviction and sentence, employing pretzel logic to get there.

A state witness backed up on a key piece of evidence during his testimony.  The state wanted to impeach that witness by playing portions of his recorded interview with the police.  The state offered the recording as substantive evidence, along with a transcript of that recording.  The defense objected.  After a sidebar on the objection, the court said “You may proceed.”  The prosecutor then asked if both the recording and the transcript were being admitted.  The court then announced that the recording was admissible but that the transcript was admissible only as a court exhibit that the jury could use during the playing of the recording to aid its understanding of the recording.  There is no additional record of what got said at the sidebar.

On appeal Mr. Campbell complained about the substantive admission of the recording.  Now, Justice Page, himself, wrote that a prior inconsistent statement not given under oath is not admissible substantively.  State v. Thames, 599 N.W.2d 122 (Minn. 1999).  Now, however, he said that the court couldn’t figure out the basis of Mr. Campbell’s objection.  Despite authoring Thames, the justice couldn’t discern from the context just what the precise objection was. 

Rule of Evidence 103(a) says that to preserve an error in the admission of evidence counsel must make a timely objection that appears of record, and which states the specific ground of objection unless the specific ground was not apparent from the context.  For the life of them, not a single member of the court could discern from the context the basis for the objection:  hearsay.  Despite Thames, the trial court admitted the recording as substantive evidence and so the obvious objection was hearsay.  Justice Page, instead, decides that for all the court knows the objection was only to the admission of the transcript of the recording.  The court reaches this conclusion by latching onto the trial court’s momentary lapse after the sidebar when she said only “You may proceed.”  When asked just how to proceed, the trial court then announced its ruling – that the recording was admitted but that the transcript was only a court exhibit.  The trial court then explained to the jury what the transcript of the recording was for.  Somehow, this meant that counsel’s only objection had been to the admission of the transcript.

Justice Page then buttresses this conclusion by pointing out that the defense made no objection when the jury asked during deliberations to hear the recording again.  The decision to replay for the jury media that has already been admitted into evidence is about unduly emphasizing a piece of evidence over all of the other evidence; it is not an opportunity to re-litigate the admission of that piece of evidence. 

It’s been the law at least since 1980 that a transcript of a recording is only for the jury’s assistance in understanding the recording as it is played.  State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1980).  The claim that the unrecorded sidebar was a debate about the admissibility of the transcript of the recording that the state was offering in evidence is disingenuous at best and frankly insulting to the court and counsel at worst. 

The upshot of this distorted logic is that the claimed error in admitting the recording for substantive purposes can only be reviewed for plain error.  Under that exacting standard the challenge fails.

Mr. Campbell also complained about the admission of Spreigl evidence.  The court assumed without deciding that the admission of that evidence was error but then went on to conclude that it was harmless.

No comments:

Post a Comment