People v. Washington CA2/7
B263078M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2016Background
- At ~4:30 a.m. officers responded to a reported burglary at the "Main Spot" marijuana dispensary; two men (Washington and Williams) were detained outside.
- Surveillance DVR recorded from ~4:10–4:33 a.m.; video shows a white truck, one person crouched at a roll-up security door with sparks and later holding a drill, the other holding a backpack and crowbar.
- Officers Hayashi and Anzora arrived near the end of the recording, detained the suspects, and later recovered a drill, crowbars, and a backpack from the white truck.
- Prosecution sought to admit the full surveillance video; defense objected for lack of authentication. The trial court admitted the video after officers testified it accurately depicted events during and after their arrival.
- Jury convicted both defendants of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools; Washington appealed, arguing the video was not properly authenticated as to the portion recorded before officers arrived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the surveillance video was properly authenticated for admission | The officers' testimony that the video accurately depicted events when they arrived, plus matching clothing/tools and DVR chain, sufficiently authenticated the whole recording | Authentication for only the portion showing officers was adequate; prosecution failed to show the earlier portion (before officers arrived) accurately depicted events | Admission was proper: officers' testimony and corroborating evidence (matching clothing/tools, continuous recording, DVR testimony) supported a reasonable inference the entire video was a fair and accurate representation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chism, 58 Cal.4th 1266 (2014) (officer testimony that video accurately depicted events inside store near time of crime can authenticate surveillance recording)
- People v. Goldsmith, 59 Cal.4th 258 (2014) (standard of review for authentication rulings and admissibility: trial court discretion; foundation may be direct or circumstantial)
- People v. Mayfield, 14 Cal.4th 668 (1997) (audio/video recordings must be authenticated to be admissible)
- People v. Bowley, 59 Cal.2d 855 (1963) (testimony of a person present when a film was made that it accurately depicts the events is sufficient foundation for admission)