State v. Miller
226 Ariz. 202
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- State seeks to preclude Gonzalez's voice-identification testimony after she monitored, transcribed, and translated wiretap calls and could identify the speakers.
- Gonzalez was to compare wiretap recordings with known recordings of Holguin, Estrella, and Tapia-Palomo to authenticate transcripts and recordings.
- Gonzalez refreshed memory by再 comparing verified recordings; her identification of speakers was disclosed to defendants who moved to preclude.
- Judge Nichols precluded Gonzalez under Rule 901, suggesting jury could determine voice identity from recordings instead.
- Judge Miller denied reconsideration but allowed other foundation testimony; State filed a special-action seeking relief, arguing abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 901 permits voice identification by familiarity with recordings. | State argues testimony properly authenticated by familiarity. | Estrella/Holguin contend it requires additional foundation beyond familiarity. | Yes; Rule 901 permits it. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by precluding Gonzalez's testimony. | State contends preclusion was improper and relied on erroneous interpretation of Rule 901. | Defendants maintain preclusion was appropriate given concerns about identifications. | Yes; the court abused its discretion. |
| Whether the issue is moot due to Miller's statement on foundations. | State contends mootness does not apply without stipulation that voices are identical. | Estrella/Holguin argue mootness since foundation issues resolved. | Not moot; authentication remains at issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376 (Ariz. 1991) (authentication testimony not conclusive proof of authenticity)
- State v. Wooten, 193 Ariz. 357 (Ariz. App. 1998) (authentication evidence effectiveness; separate weight from admissibility)
- State v. Arellano, 213 Ariz. 474 (Ariz. 2006) (weight of evidence separate from admissibility; voices on recordings)
- State v. Gortarez, 141 Ariz. 254 (Ariz. 1984) (authentication for recordings after officer comparison)
- United States v. Gallo-Moreno, 584 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2009) (hours listening to voice on recording can bolster authentication)