COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Bumgardner and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

ELLIOTT McCRAE WILSON 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 0186-98-4 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 MARCH 2, 1999 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Alfred D. Swersky, Judge 

 J. Amy Dillard, Deputy Public Defender, for 

appellant. 

 John H. McLees, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Elliott McCrae Wilson appeals his conviction of robbery and 

asserts the trial court erred by admitting a videotape taken 

during the robbery. He argues the Commonwealth failed to present 

evidence to prove that the video taping process was accurate. 

Concluding that the evidence properly authenticated the 

videotape, we affirm. 

 The victim, who does not speak English, went to a 7-11 store 

with his grandson. As he stood in the checkout line, the person 

standing behind him suddenly came around in front and struck him 

in the face. The victim fell to the floor as his attacker 

continued to hit him. The attacker searched the victim's pockets 

with one hand while hitting him with the other. Though the 

victim tried to fend off his attacker, ultimately the attacker 

took twenty, one-dollar bills from his shirt pocket. 
- 2 - 

 The victim said he got a good look at his attacker's face, 

and described him as a strong, black man whose face was a little 

thicker than usual. The victim could not describe the attacker's 

clothing and was not able to identify his attacker from police 

photographs. The 7-11 store had a surveillance camera which 

photographed the area running along the checkout counter to the 

front of the store. A camera recorded the attack, and the 

videotape was retained and offered as evidence at trial. 

 Approximately one month after the robbery, an Alexandria 

police officer recognized the defendant in still pictures made 

from the store's videotape. He interviewed the defendant, and 

the defendant admitted being in the 7-11 on the day of the 

incident and fighting with a Hispanic man. The defendant 

admitted that he threw punches, but he denied taking anything 

from the person he fought. When shown the still pictures from 

the videotape, the defendant said, "that looks like me," and 

"that looks like the Hispanic guy." 

 The Commonwealth offered the store's videotape as evidence. 

After viewing the videotape, the victim stated that it fairly and 

accurately illustrated what had happened to him at the store. 

The defendant objected that the foundation did not sufficiently 

authenticate the tape. He argued the Commonwealth had to prove 

the accuracy of the process that the store used in producing the 

tape. The trial court admitted the tape finding that the victim 

properly authenticated it by testifying it fairly and accurately 
- 3 - 

portrayed what had happened to him. The court also admitted 

several individual frames printed from the videotape. 

 The admissibility of videotapes is governed by the rules 

applicable to photographs. See Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 

260, 270-71, 257 S.E.2d 808, 816 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 

972 (1980). Their admission is within the sound discretion of 

the trial court, reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. See

Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 295, 384 S.E.2d 785 (1989). 

 Photographs are generally admitted into evidence for two 

purposes: to illustrate a witness' testimony, and as an 

"independent silent witness" of matters revealed by the 

photograph. See Ferguson v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 745, 746, 187 

S.E.2d 189, 190 (1972). "[A] photograph which is verified by the 

testimony of a witness as fairly representing what that witness 

has observed is admissible in evidence and . . . it need not be 

proved by the photographer who made it." Id. See Goins v. 

Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 470 S.E.2d 114 (1996); Chesapeake & 

Ohio Ry. v. Kinzer, 206 Va. 175, 142 S.E.2d 514 (1965). 

 The trial court's admission of the videotape and still 

pictures was not error. A proper foundation for the videotape 

was laid by the victim. The victim had personal, direct 

knowledge of the facts occurring and the scene captured on the 

tape. He testified that the tape accurately showed the assault 

on him as it was occurring. The videotape corroborated and 

portrayed graphically the victim's testimony. Because a witness 

with knowledge testified that the videotape was what it claimed 
- 4 - 

to be, the Commonwealth did not need to prove the accuracy of the 

process that produced it. The individual pictures taken from the 

videotape were simply individual segments printed from the full 

exhibit. When the whole videotape was authenticated and 

admitted, any individual segment of the whole was also 

authenticated and admitted. 

 The defendant moved to strike the evidence because the 

Commonwealth had not proven identity. He argued that the 

videotape and individual pictures had been admitted only as an 

illustration of what happened to the victim during the 

altercation. He argued the pictures could not be used to 

identify the defendant because the victim could not identify the 

defendant in the picture. The trial court disagreed and admitted 

the tape for all purposes. 

 The pictures were probative of the identity of the robber 

even though the victim could not identify him. The fact finder 

may take into consideration and regard as evidence details of the 

photograph about which no testimony has been offered. See

Mullins v. Clifton, 204 Va. 515, 132 S.E.2d 422 (1963). Finally, 

if there was any serious question that the videotape accurately 

recorded the events, it was eliminated by the evidence that the 

defendant acknowledged the pictures looked like him and the 

person with whom he fought. 
- 5 - 

 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting 

the videotape and pictures printed from it. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment. 

Affirmed.