GEORGES RICHARDSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
228 So. 3d 131
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Georges Richardson was charged with armed robbery of a cell‑phone store (robbery occurred July 15, 2013); at trial the jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of robbery and he was sentenced to 15 years.
- The State sought to admit a surveillance videotape from a neighboring doughnut shop showing Richardson at that shop shortly before the robbery; Richardson moved in limine to exclude the tape, arguing lack of authentication/chain of custody.
- The doughnut shop general manager testified the video depicted the shop and employees, that the system records continuously (loops after 30 days), that the tape had not been altered or edited, and that only a loss‑prevention employee and a manager had access; she gave the video to police but did not personally extract it.
- On cross‑examination the manager conceded she did not personally observe the loss‑prevention employee’s handling or confirm service/maintenance history of the equipment, and she never replayed the video after it was removed.
- The trial court admitted the tape over objection under the “silent witness” theory of authentication; the Fourth District affirmed, applying the five Wagner factors and distinguishing Cirillo v. Davis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the doughnut‑shop surveillance video was properly authenticated under the silent‑witness theory | Richardson: State failed to establish chain of custody and equipment reliability; general manager lacked firsthand knowledge to authenticate | State: Manager’s testimony showed date/time stamp, no evidence of tampering, limited access and security, and the recording couldn’t be altered—meeting Wagner factors | Court affirmed admission: testimony satisfied silent‑witness factors (time/date, no tampering, security/access, equipment operation, identification) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Stossel, 179 So. 163 (Fla. 1938) (films must be authenticated as faithful representations to be admissible)
- Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (articulated five‑factor test for silent‑witness authentication of videotapes)
- Cirillo v. Davis, 732 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (surveillance tapes prepared for litigation or by paid investigators may be unreliable; operator should be subject to cross‑examination)