RALPH ULIANO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the admission of a partially inaudible tape recording and the officer's testimony regarding its inaudible portions, while potentially erroneous, constituted harmless error.
Appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence and the admission of a partially inaudible tape recording of a drug deal discussion. The state sought…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. We reject appellant’s claim as to the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of a partially inaudible tape recording made during an alleged discussion of a drug deal between appellant, his friend, and an undercover police officer. We believe that the tape had sufficient relevant portions that were audible to justify its admission. We also find any potential error harmless in permitting the police officer to testify as to the inaudible portions of the tape. The officer was per mitted to testify as to the conversation between himself and appellant and his friend. This testimony was clearly admissible to prove the alleged conspiracy to sell drugs that the state claimed took place during that conversation. However, the officer was also allowed to play the tape in front of the jury and narrate the alleged conversation that took place during the inaudible portions of the tape.
In Stanley v. State, 451 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th .DCA 1984), we held that the jury is in the best position to determine what can be heard on a tape and that it was error, albeit harmless in that instance, to allow a transcript of the tape to be read by the jurors at the same time the tape was being played. Similarly, here we believe the jury should have been allowed to determine what was on the tape without the intervention of the police officer. Nevertheless, since the officer had already properly testified to the conversations (and therefore, implied what was said on the tape) we find such error harmless.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…led in understanding indistinguishable taped conversations could testify that the transcript was an accurate rendition of the tape recording. 429 So. 2d at 52. Consistent with the authentication requirements discussed in Golden, in Uliano v. State, 536 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the fourth district found a trial court’s act of permitting an officer to testify as to the inaudible portions of a tape error because the jury was in as good a position as the officer to determine what could be heard on the tap…
-
Wilson v. State, 680 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…terpretation is properly authenticated by a person having personal knowledge of the contents of the tape recording or by an expert witness skilled in interpreting inaudible tape recordings. Henry v. State, 629 So. 2d at 1059 (citing Uliano v. State, 536 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), Golden v. State, 429 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 431 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1983), and Duggan v. State, 189 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)); Harris v. State, 619 So. 2d at 342. Wilson’s taped phone message left to the victim…
-
Ezra Henry v. State, 629 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…accurate rendition of the tape-recording; or (2) an expert witness professionally skilled in understanding indistinguishable taped conversations could testify that the transcript was an accurate rendition of the tape-recording. See Uliano v. State, 536 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Golden v. State, 429 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 431 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1983); Duggan v. State, 189 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Neither method was used in the instant case; hence it was error for the trial court to a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stanley v. State, 451 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)