Chapter 11: Documentary Evidence
Case Study
Overview — Based on: Vanpelt v. State, 74 So.3d 32, 2009 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 166 (2009); Rehearing denied by: Vanpelt v. State, 2010 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 686 (2010)..
A trial court convicted defendant Kim Vanpelt of capital murder for killing his wife, Sandra Vanpelt, for pecuniary gain. The defendant was the beneficiary of a $300,000 life insurance policy on his wife that had been in force for about two weeks. One of the elements that the prosecution had to prove was that the defendant had structured his personal life in a way that he would benefit financially from the death of his new bride. The policy had “conditional coverage,” a provision that meant that it was in force unless a pre-existing condition of health was uncovered. One insurance agent testified that Vanpelt gave her a check for the amount of the first month’s premium that ensured that both spouses’ policies were in force. She testified that the agent’s normal practice was to have the insurance purchaser sign a receipt and the agent would give the purchaser the original receipt. Neither the agent nor the company typically retained a copy of the conditional receipt, and only the purchaser would have that document. The company did retain an exact copy of the policy and its terms and conditions. The insurance agent testified that after Vanpelt gave her the check for the premiums, he called her several times to verify that the policies were in effect.
The trial judge allowed the prosecution to question two insurance agents who had dealings with the Vanpelts concerning the recent life insurance purchases. However, defendant Kim Vanpelt’s counsel objected to the testimony about the insurance contracts on the ground that the testimony violated the best-evidence rule.
Kim Vanpelt argued that the testimony regarding the terms of Sandra’s life insurance policy violated the rules of evidence. Specifically, the defendant argued on appeal that testimony concerning the fact that Sandra had “conditional coverage” and evidence concerning the terms of the life insurance policy were admitted in error because the State should have introduced the original written document signed by Kim Vanpelt containing the policy terms and the terms of the conditional coverage.
According to Alabama’s version of the best-evidence rule, a party wishing to prove the contents of a writing must produce the original writing, subject to exceptions that it has been lost or stolen or destroyed through no culpable responsibility of the offering party. Only when the contents of writing are at issue does Alabama law require proof of the original. In addition, a witness does not run afoul of the best-evidence rule simply because there happens to be a writing memorializing the matter to which the witness has testified. The testimony of two witnesses who testified concerning the insurance company’s agreement with the defendant, which was memorialized by a writing, was not admitted to prove the contents of the writing, but was admitted only to prove that the written document existed. Therefore, since the contents of the document were not at issue, the trial court held that the best-evidence rule should not be applied.
Yes. To prove the contents of a writing, the general rule is that the original writing is required and must be introduced in court. The rule is designed to reduce the chances of fraud or misunderstanding concerning the contents of a document. If the contents of the writing are not at issue and the issue concerns the existence of the document, the original need not be produced. For example, an event that has occurred may be proved by oral testimony even if a writing has memorialized the existence of the event. A marriage may be proven to have happened by oral testimony even though a marriage certificate exists.
Yes. The trial judge ruled properly concerning the testimony of the insurance agents because the issue was not to explain the details of the actual policies but was whether the policies existed and were in force. Here, the contents of the written policies were not relevant to the case that the prosecutor needed to prove (so as to find the defendant guilty of killing for pecuniary gain), and the best-evidence rule had no application.
Yes. If, for some reason, the minute details of the policy became important for the prosecution to prove its case, generally the prosecution would have to produce the original policy. However, since the policy was written in duplicate and the defendant allegedly signed the duplicate copies, all the duplicate copies would qualify as duplicate originals and would be admissible even if the original were not introduced. In addition, if the original were in the hands of the defendant and could not be obtained by the prosecution, secondary evidence would generally be admissible in court.