Section 7.18 Admissibility at Trial

LibrarySources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

F. (§7.18) Admissibility at Trial

There is “no reason to distinguish videotapes in such manner as to require their admissibility to be ruled differently than either verbal testimony or photographs.” State v. Mayhue, 653 S.W.2d 227, 235 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). A video recording is admissible if a proper foundation for its admission is presented. State v. Molasky, 655 S.W.2d 663, 668 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983); State v. Hamell, 561 S.W.2d 357, 361 (Mo. App. E.D. 1977). This foundation must show that the recording is an accurate, faithful representation of the place, person, or subject that it purports to portray; this may be established by any witness who is familiar with the subject matter of video recording and is competent to testify from personal observation. See McPherson Redevelopment Corp. v. Watkins, 782 S.W.2d 690, 691–92 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989); see also State v. Lindsey, 507 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1974) (a video recording that accurately reproduced what the defendant said and did was admissible; rules of evidence governing admissibility of evidence should not require “horse and buggy” methods of proof); Molasky, 655 S.W.2d at 668 (authenticity of a videotape was verified by a videotape expert, who testified that the tape was an original that had not been edited or altered); cf. State v. Shifkowski, 57 S.W.3d 309, 315–16 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001) (a prior video-recorded statement of the victim was excluded when the victim had not seen the recording and could not authenticate it).

Missouri appellate courts have...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT