Tatum v. Commonwealth

Citations: 440 S.E.2d 133; 17 Va. App. 585; 10 Va. Law Rep. 830; 1994 Va. App. LEXIS 30Docket: Record No. 0222-92-4

Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia; January 25, 1994; Virginia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Charles K. Tatum was convicted of simple abduction and sentenced to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. On appeal, he contested the trial court's decisions regarding evidence: specifically, the admission of testimony from the victim's father about his caller ID displaying Tatum's number during a call made by the victim at the time of the abduction, and the impeachment of defense witness Dina Hashman with an alleged prior inconsistent statement.

The abduction incident stemmed from a domestic dispute between Tatum and his girlfriend, Antoinette Orsini. On August 9, 1991, after a dinner with friends, Orsini expressed a desire to return home but was met with Tatum's anger, which escalated to verbal and physical abuse. He forced her to call her parents and falsely inform them that she would not return home that night. The next morning, Orsini returned home with visible injuries.

Testimony from Orsini's father included the caller ID evidence, which was disputed by Tatum. Additionally, the Commonwealth's cross-examination of Hashman, a defense witness, regarding her past alleged misdemeanor and subsequent attempts to impeach her were challenged by the defense, but the trial court permitted this line of questioning.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the trial court's decisions and affirmed the conviction.

The case presents a novel legal issue in Virginia regarding the admissibility of Mr. Orsini's testimony about his caller ID, which the appellant claims is inadmissible hearsay. The court disagrees, defining hearsay as out-of-court statements used to prove the truth of the matters asserted, reliant on the credibility of the original speaker. In this instance, the caller ID is deemed reliable as it is based on computer-generated data, not on human testimony, thus lacking an 'out-of-court asserter.' Citing *Penny v. Commonwealth*, the court reinforces that such electronic evidence should be analyzed as scientific rather than hearsay, as there is no out-of-court declarant to cross-examine.

Mr. Orsini’s testimony establishes the reliability of the caller ID through his recognition of the number as belonging to the appellant, supported by his recollection of prior calls and specific details about those interactions. He confirmed the number displayed matched appellant's home phone and provided a timeline of calls, including specific dates, times, and the identity of the callers. The court finds no error in the trial court's decision to admit Mr. Orsini's testimony, concluding that the reliability of the caller ID device meets the standards set forth in *Penny*.

The trial court found the caller ID device used by Mr. Orsini to be reliable, allowing testimony about the displayed Maryland number to support the victim's claim that she called her parents from the appellant's home. The appellant contested the trial court's decision to allow the Commonwealth to impeach Ms. Hashman based on a prior inconsistent statement regarding her criminal history, arguing it involved collateral matters not addressed in direct examination. During cross-examination, Ms. Hashman initially denied any convictions but later acknowledged a misdemeanor charge that was dropped. The court determined that questioning about her arrest was improper, as it was irrelevant to the case's core issues. However, this error was deemed harmless, as it did not impact the trial's outcome or the verdict, with no mention of it in closing arguments. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment but noted a clerical error in the final order, which incorrectly stated the charges against the defendant. The case was remanded to correct this clerical error.