Harris v. StateHarris v. State
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.
Santino Ceccotti, Esquire, Office of the Public Defender, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.
Sean P. Lugg, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee.
VALIHURA, Justice:
In this appeal, defendant-below, appellant Deshaun Harris (“Harris“), asserts that the Superior Court abused its discretion in admitting certain prison phone call recordings. We find no merit to the appeal and, accordingly, AFFIRM Harris‘s conviction and sentence.
I. Facts and Procedural History
A. Facts1
In May 2020, William Baker (“Baker“), his mother, Christine Brittingham (“Brittingham“), his fiancée, Catrina Knotts (“Knotts“), and his brother, Dylan Wilkerson (“Wilkerson“), rented rooms 46 and 50 at the Kent Budget Inn in Dover, Delaware.2 In the early afternoon of May 10, 2020, Baker responded to a knock on his door. Upon opening the door, he was immediately pistol whipped by two men. The two assailants, one of whom Baker identified as Harris, forced themselves into the room, demanded the occupants’ belongings, and threatened to kill them if they did not comply.3 Harris hit Baker, knocking him to the floor. Baker‘s mother, Brittingham, then stood up and moved toward Harris.4
Harris punched Brittingham in the head, knocking her to the floor. As she fell, her foot became caught under a nearby dresser, causing a compound fracture to her ankle. Harris then punched Baker‘s
When Dover Police officers responded to the scene a short time later, Baker informed Detective Mullaney of Deshaun Harris‘s identity and of Harris‘s involvement in the robbery.5 Detective Mullaney viewed the motel surveillance videos depicting “an individual that resembled a Deshaun Harris” that Officer Mullaney had previously encountered.6 He testified that he had seen Harris on several prior occasions wearing the same type of tan “Carhartt” coat.7 Thereafter, Detective Mullaney obtained a photograph of Harris and showed it to Baker, who positively identified Harris. Detective Mullaney then secured a warrant for Harris‘s arrest. Dover Police arrested Harris five days later.
After Harris‘s arrest, before trial, Baker was confronted by individuals who offered him money to sign papers stating that Harris was not the perpetrator of the attack. They threatened Baker, warning him that if he testified on the stand or identified Harris, they would kill his family and him. At trial, the State produced three documents purporting to be affidavits of Baker recanting his identification of Harris. Each document was in a different format — one was written in cursive, one was printed, and one was typed. Baker testified that he did not draft any of the documents, but that he signed the typed affidavit under the threat of being killed.
During its investigation, the State found multiple prison phone calls between a person believed to be Harris and an unidentified woman. The State sought to introduce certain portions of the calls to corroborate Baker‘s testimony and to contextualize the three affidavits wherein Baker had recanted his identification of Harris. Harris argued that their admission violated
The Superior Court admitted the recordings over Harris‘s objection. But to minimize any unduly prejudicial effect, it ordered that the recordings be edited to remove the reference to the company that handles the prison recordings. It also ordered counsel to meet and confer regarding the preparation of a transcript of the recordings.9 Further, the court indicated that a limiting instruction would be given regarding the jury‘s use of the prison call
Further, Harris stipulated “that from May 27, 2020 to June 30, 2020, [he] was committed to a detention center.”11 In view of this stipulation, the trial judge instructed the jury not to draw any inference “that because of this incarceration, the defendant is a bad person, disreputable or that he is somehow more likely to have committed the crimes for which he has been accused.”12
B. Procedural History
On September 8, 2020, approximately four months after Harris‘s May 2020 arrest, a Kent County grand jury indicted Harris on charges related to the May 10 robbery. On May 3, 2021, a Kent County grand jury returned a final, superseding indictment charging Harris with: Robbery First Degree (2 counts), Assault First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF“), Burglary First Degree, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP“), Aggravated Menacing, Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy Second Degree (2 counts), Assault Third Degree (2 counts), Theft, Aggravated Act of Intimidation, and Breach of Conditions of Bond During Commitment.13
The Aggravated Act of Intimidation, Breach of Conditions of Bond During Commitment, and related conspiracy charges were added after the State‘s discovery of the prison phone call recordings. Specifically, Counts 13 and 14 charged as follows:
COUNT 13 (Aggravated Act of Intimidation)
DESHAUN J. HARRIS, on or between the 10th day of May, 2020 and the 23rd day of April 2021, in the County of Kent, State of Delaware, did knowingly and with malice prevent or dissuade or did attempt to prevent or dissuade William Baker, a victim or witness to a crime, from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law and is accompanied by an express or implied threat of force or violence upon William Baker, or the property of said victim, witness or third person.
COUNT 14 (Breach of Conditions of Bond During Commitment)
DESHAUN J. HARRIS, on or between the 10th day of May, 2020 and the 23rd day of April 2021, in the County of Kent, State of Delaware, having been committed in lieu of bail in connection with one or more charges of a felony prior to trial, did knowingly breach a condition imposed in connection with that bail by having contact with William Baker after a no contact order was entered.14
II. Issue on Appeal
Harris contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the prison recordings over defense counsel‘s objection that the probative value of the calls did not outweigh the highly prejudicial nature of the calls. He challenges the trial court‘s conclusions both as to the probative value of the recordings and as to their prejudicial nature. First, he argues that the probative value of the prison phone call recordings was minimal and speculative because large portions of the transcribed calls are inaudible, and the voices heard on the calls were not properly authenticated. Moreover, in Harris‘s view, it was improper for the trial court to allow the jury to use a transcript of the tape to interpret the inaudible portions of the phone calls. Second, Harris contends that the phone call recordings were unduly prejudicial because they made the jury aware that Harris was previously incarcerated, undermining the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of Harris‘s innocence, and potentially allowing the jury to convict Harris on an improper basis.
Harris asserts that this evidentiary error deprived him of his constitutional due process right to a fair trial, and that without the admission of the recordings, there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different. Accordingly, Harris asserts that reversal of his convictions is required.
III. Standard of Review
This Court reviews “a trial court‘s decision on the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.”16 “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court has exceeded the bounds of reason in light of the circumstances, or so ignored recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.”17
IV. Discussion
After a review of the record and Harris‘s argument on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prison phone call recordings that revealed Harris‘s efforts to influence a witness‘s participation in his trial.
“Evidence must be relevant to be admissible at trial.”18 “Relevant evidence is admissible unless [a statute, these Rules, or other rules applicable in the Courts of this State] provides otherwise.”19 “Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”20 “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”21 “The determinations of relevancy and unfair prejudice are ‘matters within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed in the absence of clear abuse of discretion.”22
Here, the focus of this appeal is the Superior Court‘s balancing of the probative value of the recordings against their prejudicial effect. In ruling on Harris‘s evidentiary challenge under
So it seems to the Court that the issue with regard to the prison calls turns on, really, a singular point; which is, whether or not the probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant.
Delaware Uniform Rule of Evidence 403 requires this Court to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to a defendant.
Two of the charges outlined in the indictment in this case involve witness tampering or intimidation. Further, there is both testimonial evidence and documentary evidence regarding contact made with Mr. Baker regarding his attendance and testimony in court today.
The jury was alerted at the outset of this case that one of the indicted charges was breach of conditions of bond during commitment, so the jury already knows at some point the defendant was incarcerated.
The Court concludes that the State has sufficiently articulated witness tampering as the applicable government interest requisite to admission of the recorded prison calls. They will be admitted.23
As explained below, we agree with the Superior Court‘s analysis and find no abuse of discretion.
1. Probative Value
As set forth above, Harris‘s indictment charged him with, among other things, crimes related to his efforts to dissuade a witness from testifying against him at his trial for the robbery.24 The phone call recordings introduced at trial were probative of the central elements of those crimes.
The transcripts of the recordings of prison phone calls made between May 27, 2020 and June 30, 2020 reflect a dialogue between an unidentified woman and a man, who introduces himself as Shaun, and uses Deshaun Harris‘s State Bureau of Identification (SBI) number. In the conversations, the two discuss, among other things, that the woman has been trying to induce an unnamed man to sign a statement she prepared, what format the statement needed to be in (cursive, printed, or typed),28 that “he got in a car and went to his bank” to sign the statement,29 and that there was an exchange of “$500 cash.”30 In short, the prison phone call recordings corroborated Baker‘s description of the efforts to dissuade him and provided context to the three forms (cursive, printed, and typed) of affidavits purporting to recant Baker‘s identification of Harris.31
This Court has previously recognized the probative value of prison phone call recordings in the context of a challenge to their admissibility. In Anderson v. State, for example, the appellant argued that the Superior Court abused its discretion during his trial when it permitted the jury to hear recorded prison phone calls wherein he made statements that, according to the State, were intended to solicit family members to tamper with witnesses.32 This Court agreed with the Superior Court‘s finding that “[t]he statements in the phone calls could easily be construed to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt and also the intention to intimidate witnesses.”33 Accordingly, we held that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prison recordings. Here, we conclude
a. Clarity
On appeal, Harris argues that the recordings lacked probative value because large portions of the transcribed calls are inaudible.34 To the extent that the clarity of the recording could undermine the probative value of the recordings, or confuse the jury, the Superior Court addressed that concern by directing the parties to prepare an agreed-upon transcript.35 In the final portion of its oral bench ruling, the Superior Court stated:
I think there is a potential secondary 403 issue with the clarity of the call. So counsel will need to confer. You can barely hear the male person on that phone call. It‘s difficult to hear. And so that needs to be remedied. The remedy that the Court can come up with given the probative value of what is able to be discerned on those calls is that you all meet and confer and come up with a transcript, and that will accompany the prison call.36
Both parties agreed on the transcript and to allow the jurors to use the transcript to read along as they listened to the recording.37 Harris‘s response that, had the trial court properly excluded the recordings, there would have been no need for the transcript in the first instance, is unavailing.38 Given the probative value of the recordings, it was proper for the trial court to fashion a method by which to admit the evidence and to minimize any resulting prejudice.39 The method ultimately used to address the clarity was reasonable as evidenced by the parties’ agreement to it.
b. Authentication
Next, Harris argues that the recordings lacked probative value because the male voice was not properly authenticated as belonging to Harris. “To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”40 “The burden of
The State met its burden of authentication when it offered the testimony of Timothy Martin (“Martin“), the legal service administrator for the Department of Correction and the custodian of prison phone call records.42 Martin testified that he pulled the call recordings associated with Harris between May 27, 2020 and June 30, 2020, identified the certificate of authenticity of records introduced by the State, and explained that the recording system requires the inmate to log on with their SBI number and then repeat a phrase for voice identification.43
The authenticity of the recordings is further established through their content and context.44 A male voice, using Harris‘s SBI number was heard speaking with a woman regarding efforts to convince a man to recant his identification of Harris as one of the individuals who participated in the motel room robbery. The discussion mentions a specific dollar amount being paid to the unnamed man — $500 — the number given by Baker in his testimony. Furthermore, these discussions heavily concerned the form of the affidavits and gave background to the reason that three different affidavits in three different formats exist, a unique circumstance. The evidence was sufficient to allow a juror to conclude that the recording was authentic.45 Additionally, Harris was afforded the opportunity, of which he availed himself, to challenge the weight and credibility of the evidence.46
On the other end of the
V. Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the prison phone call recordings. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Superior Court.