188 A.3d 975
Md.2018Background
- Defendant Allan Jackson convicted by jury of first-degree assault and theft ($1,000–$10,000) arising from an April 29–30, 2015 home invasion and subsequent unauthorized ATM withdrawals from the victim’s PNC account.
- Prosecution introduced two ATM receipts and still photos from Bank of America ATM surveillance, plus two CDs containing ATM surveillance video segments (11:15–11:35 p.m. and 12:10–12:30 a.m.).
- Bank of America Protective Services Manager Brett Cunningham testified about accessing the DVR, exporting files, and requesting copies be produced and mailed by a remote Bank of America team; he could not alter the footage and verified the CD matched what he had viewed.
- Victim Donald Daggett testified he obtained a PNC account statement and an Account Transaction Detail Report from his bank the day after the thefts; the statement showed four ATM withdrawals (totaling $1,112) and service-fee entries matching the ATM receipts.
- Trial court admitted the CD (over relevance/authenticity objection) and the PNC statements as business records; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ATM surveillance CD was properly authenticated under Md. Rule 5-901 | Jackson: tape was not what State claimed (did not show the 11:43 p.m. $200 withdrawal), so it wasn’t authenticated | State: Cunningham’s testimony about DVR access, export process, and that the CD fairly reproduced what he viewed was sufficient foundation | Court: Admitted; Rule 5-901 requires only sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find it is what proponent claims; Cunningham’s testimony satisfied that threshold |
| Whether PNC bank statements were properly authenticated and admissible under the business-records exception (Md. Rule 5-803(b)(6)) | Jackson: challenges genuineness and urges stricter authentication (points to Rule 5-902 self-authentication requirements) | State: statements admitted via victim’s testimony and corroborating ATM receipts showing matching amounts, machine identifier, fees; meet business-record criteria | Court: Admitted; statements met (A) made at/near time, (B) made by/from persons with knowledge, (C) made and kept in regular course, (D) regular practice to make and keep; not required to be self-authenticating under Rule 5-902 |
| Whether discrepancies between timestamps (video clock vs. receipt) undermine authenticity | Jackson: discrepancy shows misidentification/misrepresentation of what video shows | State: timestamp mismatch affects weight, not admissibility; relevance for jury to resolve | Court: Timestamp discrepancy does not negate authenticity; goes to weight for jury |
| Whether authentication may be established circumstantially for business records | Jackson: argues Rule 5-902 demands testimony of authenticity and cautions against inference-only authentication | State: circumstantial evidence and victim’s testimony suffice to authenticate business records under Rule 5-803(b)(6) | Court: Authentication may be through in-court testimony and circumstantial evidence; victim’s receipt of statements from bank plus corroborating receipts sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. State, 406 Md. 642 (videotape/photo authentication and "silent witness" foundations)
- Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632 (authentication threshold under Md. Rule 5-901)
- Bartlett v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC, 438 Md. 255 (bank records and business-record reliability)
- State v. Bryant, 361 Md. 420 (limitations where witness failed to establish timing or source for business record)
- Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. v. Cole, 342 Md. 12 (foundational proof for documentary evidence and business records)
- Hall v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 398 Md. 67 (rationale for business-record exception and reliability)