State v. Reeves, 967 N.W.2d 144

In December 2017 Reeves fought with another inmate (Clapper) at the Minnehaha County Jail, was restrained, and later spat blood and saliva on Sergeant Schaunaman while being escorted to lockdown.
Jail surveillance cameras (24/7) and a handheld camcorder recorded portions of the incident; footage was stored on a secure server accessible only to supervisors.
The State offered a DVD of the surveillance footage at trial. Corporal Keegan retrieved and authenticated the recording but was not present for the altercation; Reeves objected to admission for lack of foundation, irrelevance, and hearsay and argued the tape lacked context.
The circuit court admitted the jail video, reasoning sufficient foundation was laid (camera/system description, secure storage, no alteration) and that context was a weight issue, not admissibility.
Reeves was convicted on all counts; on appeal he argued the court abused its discretion by admitting the surveillance footage without proper authentication.
The Supreme Court affirmed, adopting the "silent witness" theory under a flexible, fact-based approach to authenticate automatically recorded photos/videos under SDCL 19-19-901(b)(9).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jail surveillance video was properly authenticated for admission	State: Corporal Keegan’s testimony about camera system, secure storage, retrieval, and that the recording fairly represented the scene satisfied SDCL 19-19-901(b)(9)	Reeves: Keegan wasn’t present during the event and thus could not verify the recording fairly and accurately represented what occurred; lacked foundation	Court: Admission proper. Adopted flexible "silent witness" approach; Keegan’s testimony provided sufficient foundation under SDCL 19-19-901

State v. Stangle, 97 A.3d 634 (N.H. 2014) (adopts flexible, case-specific application of the silent witness theory for photographic/video authentication)
State v. Luke, 464 P.3d 914 (Haw. Ct. App. 2020) (endorses tailoring authentication requirements to the facts and assigns some issues to weight rather than admissibility)
State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77 (S.D. 1988) (foundational requirements satisfied where officer who videotaped testified)
State v. Dunkelberger, 909 N.W.2d 398 (S.D. 2018) (defendant’s admission to what was depicted on video can satisfy foundation)
U.S. v. Rengifo, 789 F.2d 975 (1st Cir. 1986) (applies silent witness theory to automatic surveillance recordings)
State v. Stokes, 895 N.W.2d 351 (S.D. 2017) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)