Actions on Applications for Leave to Appeal from the Court of Appeals.
Leave to Appeal Denied September 28, 2007:
MARKMAN, J. (concurring).
Because defendant has failed to make any showing that voiceprint evidence would demonstrate that the voice on the recording was not his own, I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. I write separately to observe that this Court, in an appropriate case, should revisit its conclusion in People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141, 148 (1977), that voiceprint evidence is inadmissible because it has not "achieved general scientific acceptance as a reliable identification device. . . ." Since Tobey was decided, 11 other states have addressed the admissibility of voiceprint evidence: five states have admitted such evidence, see, e.g., People v Coon, 974 P2d 386 (Alas, 1999), and six states have rejected such evidence, see, e.g., State v Gortarez, 141 Ariz 254 (1984). Coon is the only decision of a state supreme court that has addressed voiceprint evidence under the test of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 (1993), which is now the relevant standard in Michigan under MRE 702. In light of these legal developments, as well as potential technological improvements in voiceprint technology over the past three decades, this Court should revisit the admissibility of voiceprint evidence on an appropriate occasion.