State v. Sassarini, 452 P.3d 457

Neighbor Walker recorded a June 10, 2014 confrontation with defendant on a Sony XD cam; Walker later provided police with DVDs said to contain copies of three digital files from that cam.
The sheriff’s office booked a second DVD into evidence and produced a copy to defense in discovery; defense expert Edward Primeau reviewed that DVD copy and reported metadata irregularities and suspected editing.
On the morning of the in limine hearing Walker produced the camera and memory card; the court played clips from the memory card and compared them to the state’s DVD; Walker and Deputy McAllister testified the recordings matched and accurately depicted the incident.
Defense asked for a continuance to let its expert analyze the original camera/memory card; the trial court denied the continuance and admitted the state’s DVD under OEC 901; the jury convicted defendant of harassment (acquitted on assault).
On appeal defendant challenged (1) denial of the continuance and (2) admission of the DVD for lack of sufficient authentication; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion for continuance to permit defense expert to examine camera/memory card	Defendant knew the discovery copy was not the original and could have sought the original earlier; no discovery or Brady violation by state	Memory card existence was not known until hearing; denial deprived defense of adequate preparation	No abuse of discretion; defendant made a tactical choice and should have pursued originals earlier
Authentication/admissibility of the DVD digital recordings	Walker and officer testimony that DVD matches original memory-card recordings supplied sufficient foundation under OEC 901 to admit duplicates	Metadata irregularities on the copy and expert opinion raised genuine doubt about authenticity and required exclusion under Miller-style foundation rules	OEC 901’s low prima facie threshold was met; authenticity issues (including metadata) were for the jury; admission proper

State v. Miller, 6 Or. App. 366, 487 P.2d 1387 (Or. Ct. App. 1971) (set out flexible foundational factors for recorded evidence)
State v. Bray, 363 Or. 226, 422 P.3d 250 (Or. 2018) (statutory subpoena authority for digital evidence; tactical decisions affect relief)
State v. Noorzai, 292 Or. App. 248, 423 P.3d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (discussing evolution from strict McKeever factors to OEC 901’s flexible approach)
State v. Divito, 180 Or. App. 156, 42 P.3d 918 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (review standard for sufficiency of foundational evidence)
Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007) (role and limits of metadata in authenticating electronic evidence)
United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2006) (possibility of digital alteration alone does not require exclusion absent specific evidence of tampering)