« Pages In Your Diary: Supreme Court of West Virginia Badly Errs in Deeming Diary Entries Admissible Despite Rape Shield Rule | Main | I'm Incomplete: 7th Circuit Funds Excerpted Copies From Transcript Inadmissible Under Best Evidence Rule »
December 17, 2012
Better Evidence or Best Evidence?: Court of Appeals of Minnesota Finds Best Evidence Rule Doesn't Apply to Confession
To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Legislative Act.
As the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Minnesota in State v. Rowland, 2012 WL 6554539 (Minn.App. 2012), makes clear, however, this best evidence rule does not apply when a witness has independent personal knowledge of the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph.
In Rowland, Craig Rowland was charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct. After he was convicted, Rowland appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court erred by allowing an investigator to testify regarding his statement/confession without introducing the recording of the statement/confession or a transcript. Specifically, he claimed "that the best-evidence rule required that his recorded statement be admitted, rather than the investigator's recollection of his statement."
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota disagreed, finding that
The "best-evidence" rule states that "[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required."...But the state is not required to introduce a tape or transcript of a police interview with a criminal defendant....The best-evidence rule is inapplicable here. The investigator testified regarding appellant's statement to him. "[A] witness with first-hand knowledge of what was said in a conversation may permissibly testify as to what he heard."...Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the investigator's testimony regarding his recollection of appellant's statement.
In other words, the investigator had independent personal knowledge of the statement/confession, meaning that his knowledge of the statement/confession was not dependent on the recording. Instead, the investigator himself heard Rowland make the statement/confession in person. Therefore, even if the statement/confession were not recorded, the investigator would have had knowledge of it. And that's why the best evidence rule did not apply.
December 17, 2012 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Better Evidence or Best Evidence?: Court of Appeals of Minnesota Finds Best Evidence Rule Doesn't Apply to Confession:
You seem to be a good lawyer and know a lot about appeals. On the legal forum of Attorney Online we started a discussion about what are appeals http://attorney-online.info/forum/13-70-1 Please join the discussion and express your opinion. Moreover you can write there articles and posts to Attorney Blog. If you know many good attorneys, you can invite them to submit their contacts to Attorney Directory. It is free and lifetime. If you know interesting legal news, you can also publish them.
Posted by: attorney-online.info | Dec 21, 2012 11:26:04 AM