T.D.W. v. State, 137 So. 3d 574

Appellant was charged and convicted for burglary after three witnesses (a deputy, the victim, and the victim’s son) identified him from a home-surveillance video.
The surveillance system originally showed four camera views; the copy admitted into evidence contained only three views and omitted the camera angle the detective relied on.
A detective testified outside the jury about what she saw on the missing camera view and identified appellant from that unavailable view.
Appellant objected at trial under the best evidence rule; the trial court overruled the objection and relied on the identifications cumulatively.
The trial judge expressed doubt that any single identification proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but found the combined identifications sufficient.
The appellate court reversed, holding the detective’s content-based testimony about the unadmitted tape violated the best evidence rule and the State failed to show an applicable exception; the error was not harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether in-court testimony describing contents of an unadmitted surveillance view violates the Best Evidence Rule	State argued the detective’s testimony was admissible to identify appellant and that the missing view was unavailable	Appellant argued spoken description of the missing view was content-based and inadmissible absent the original or a statutory exception	Court held the testimony violated the Best Evidence Rule because it sought to prove the contents of the missing recording without the original or an established exception
Whether an exception to the Best Evidence Rule (lost/destroyed) applied	State contended the missing camera view was unavailable and thus secondary evidence should be allowed	Appellant argued the State failed to prove loss or destruction and did not show any statutory exception	Court held the State failed to prove any §90.954 exception; burden rests on proponent to show admissibility of secondary evidence
Whether the Best Evidence violation was harmless error	State argued any error was harmless given the cumulative identifications	Appellant argued the error contributed to the verdict, especially since the trial judge doubted individual identifications	Court held the error was not harmless because the judge relied on the improper testimony and stated none of the IDs alone would suffice, so reversal was required

Dyer v. State, 26 So.3d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (testimony about contents of an unadmitted surveillance recording violates best evidence rule)
Russell v. State, 844 So.2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (detective’s testimony about videotape contents improper without original)
McKeehan v. State, 838 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (officer’s identification from an unadmitted tape violated best evidence rule)
State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard in criminal convictions)
Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537 (Fla. 1999) (analysis focuses on effect of error on trier of fact)
Stires v. State, 824 So.2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (discussing harmless error review in best-evidence contexts)