State v. Hill, 1512001609

Defendant Samantha Hill was indicted for second-degree assault and offensive touching after a November 29, 2015 street altercation captured on a ~41‑second video filmed from a vehicle by an unknown person.
The State sought to introduce the video at trial; defense moved to exclude it for lack of authentication because the videographer is unknown and time/place are not independently established.
The State proposed to authenticate the recording via testimony from the alleged victim, Jaynera Jones, and Officer Cavanaugh, who observed Jones and the scene after the incident.
Defense argued that the videographer must be produced to authenticate the recording and raised credibility concerns about Jones’s ability to identify the video accurately.
The Superior Court applied D.R.E. 901 and related Delaware precedent, concluding the State presented sufficient testimonial evidence for a reasonable juror to find the video is what the State claims and denied defense’s motion to exclude.

Issue	State's Argument	Hill's Argument	Held
Whether the video may be authenticated without testimony from the person who recorded it	Video may be authenticated by a witness with knowledge (Jones) and an officer linking clothing/location to the recording	Unknown videographer and uncertain time/place make authentication unreliable; videographer must testify	Court: Authentication satisfied by witness testimony under D.R.E. 901(b)(1); admission allowed
Whether accuracy of camera transmission is required for admissibility	Accuracy is a weight issue for the jury, not a prerequisite to admissibility	Camera transmission concerns go to admissibility absent the filmer's testimony	Court: Transmission concerns go to weight; admissible if reasonable probability of authenticity
Whether witness credibility issues (Jones’s possible untruthfulness) bar authentication	Credibility is for cross-examination and jury determination	Jones’s credibility flaws undermine any identification of the video	Court: Credibility does not prevent authentication; issues reserved for cross-examination/jury
Standard for authentication of contemporaneous/video evidence	D.R.E. 901(a)/(b)(1) allows testimony by a person with knowledge to authenticate	Defense urged a stricter requirement (filmer testimony)	Court: Applied Rule 901 standard; testimonial identification is sufficient

State v. Booker, 547 A.2d 618 (Del. Super. Ct. 1988) (contemporaneous videotape may be authenticated without independent verification of camera transmission)
Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151 (Del. 1987) (authenticity requires elimination of misidentification as a matter of reasonable probability)
U.S. v. Clayton, 643 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir. 1981) (photographs may be authenticated by eyewitness testimony when appropriate)
U.S. v. McNair, 439 F. Supp. 103 (E.D. Pa. 1977) (surveillance photographs properly authenticated by teller eyewitnesses)