Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs January 14, 2015
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2008-B-1061 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge
In this delayed direct appeal, the Defendant, Elmi Abdulahi Abdi, argues that the trial court erred when it admitted a redacted version of his video-recorded statement into evidence. The Defendant contends that the trial court should have introduced the full video-recorded statement to allow the jury to consider his statement in context. The record does not include the un-redacted video statement, a transcript of the audio of the un-redacted video statement, a transcript of a hearing on the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude the redacted statement, or an order from the trial court ruling on the motion in limine. Additionally, the Defendant did not make a contemporaneous objection when the redacted video was played to the jury and did not require the introduction of the un-redacted video pursuant to the rule of completeness, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 106. We conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the redacted video and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right;
Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed.
Elaine Heard, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Elmi Abdulahi Abdi.
Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; and Rachel Sobrero, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Robert L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Robert W. Wedemeyer, J., joined.
ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE
I. Procedural History
Pretrial Motions and Jury Trial
The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant in Case No. 08-B-1061 for two counts involving separate victims and acts: Count 1–aggravated robbery of Zino Aboona, a front desk clerk at Crossland Studios, and Count 2–attempted aggravated robbery of Andrea Neal, a front desk clerk at Extended Stay America Hotel. Both offenses were alleged to have occurred on January 1, 2008.
On February 13, 2009, the trial court for Division I heard a Motion to Sever Count1 and Count 2, in which the Defendant argued for severance of the two counts and the State argued the two offenses were part of a common scheme or plan. At the beginning of the hearing, the Defendant discussed the need to redact the Defendant's statement, explaining:
There's a statement that [the Defendant] gave to the Police Department; and on that statement, there's discussion of the two incidents from January first, that the severance is about, and also an incident from December twenty-sixth.
The incident from the twenty-sixth needs to be redacted, regardless; and, depending on the results of [the hearing on the motion to sever], . . . one of the incidents ...