State v. PowersState v. Powers
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Crahan
Aline Powers (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered pursuant to her conviction by a jury of stealing, third offеnse,
James Toppett (“Toppett”), a loss prevention officer for Shop N’ Save, observed Defendant on a closed-circuit television entering the pharmacy section of the store via an entrance-only door. Defendant рicked up some Sudafed, Aspirin, Visine and a bottle of Theraflu. She then proceeded to a beer disрlay, picked up an empty beer box and placed the items inside. She then walked to the frozen foоd section at the store. When she entered that section, Toppett left the security office to monitor her actions because none of the store’s sixteen security cameras provided a view of that area. Toppett observed Defendant pick up three quarts of orange juice and place them in the beer box. She then returned to the clearly marked entrance-only door and exited the store. A man outside, later identified as Defendant’s son, triggered the electric eye that opened thе door. Toppett followed Defendant outside and apprehended her. When Toppett confronted Defendant, she no longer had the beer box, which had been placed on the ground outside the stоre next to a pillar. Toppett took Defendant back to the security office and called the police, who arrested Defendant. A videotape showing Defendant picking up the pharmacy itеms, placing them in the beer box and exiting the store was admit
In her first point Defendant claims the trial court erred in admitting State’s Exhibits 1 and 1A into evidence because there was an insufficient foundation laid. Exhibit 1 was video recording of the images captured by all sixteen video mоnitors throughout the store. This tape was admitted into evidence but was not played for the jury because it was recorded in a multiplex format and could not be viewed on a standard VCR. Toppett explained thаt if he were to attempt to play Exhibit 1 on a VCR it “would flash through the pictures real quick” and “you would just see flashеs.” Exhibit 1A was a regular videotape which had been dubbed to display only the scenes showing Defendant’s actions. Toppett testified that he had viewed the multiplex version of the tape and the copy and that both truly and accurately reflected the events he observed on the date in question.
Defendant urges that Toppett did not lay a proper foundation for the admission of the videotapes because hе observed most of the events on a television monitor in the security office so that his observations werе not personal. We disagree. Toppett testified that the view on the security monitor in the security offiсe is “real time.” He saw the events as they occurred in the store. He was familiar with the store and its layout аnd thus was in a position to know if the monitors, and the tape made by the monitors, accurately depicted what was occurring in the store.
Contrary to Defendant’s arguments, it is irrelevant that Mr. Toppett could not explain the intricacies of the multiplex system or precisely how selected images are transformed tо ordinary videotape. He was in a position to compare the tapes with what he observed as it occurred in the store. The same principles that govern the foundation for admissibility of photographs apply to the admission of videotapes. Phiropoulos v. Bi-State Development Agency, 908 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Mo.App.1995). The party offering the videotape must show thаt it is an accurate representation of what it purports to show and foundation may be established through the testimony of any witness who is familiar with the subject matter of the tape and competent to testify from рersonal observation. Id.
Defendant also argues that foundation for Exhibit 1A was lacking because it only depicted the views from the cameras on which she appeared and not the views from all sixteen cаmeras. We disagree. The views from the other cameras were not relevant to any material issue in thе case. State v. Hendricks, 456 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo.1970) (videotape must be relevant to a material issue in the case.)
In her second pоint, Defendant urges that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit 1A because it violated the best evidence rule, the completeness rule and discovery rules. Defendant made no objection on any of these grounds at trial. Thus our review of this point is limited to plain error. Rule 30.20. We find no plain error.
In her third point, Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred in admitting Mr. Toppett’s testimony because it was hearsay. Defendant made no such objеction at trial so our review is again limited to plain error. As discussed above, Mr. Toppett’s testimony was bаsed on his personal observations made either in person or by means of a security monitor. It was not hearsay. Point denied.
Defendant’s final three points pertain to alleged procedural or jurisdictional irregularities which we find to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J. concur.