No. 2-08- 0915 File d: 12-22-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Ke nd all C o un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 07-- CF--151 ) SIRENIO FLORES, ) Ho no r ab le ) Thom

as E. M uel l er, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEZE

NO FF de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Siren i o Fl ores , ap pe als f rom hi s n i nth con vi cti on of dri vi ng wi th a rev oke d or
su sp en de d lic en se ( 62 5 I LC S 5 /1 1-
- 50 1. 1 ( We st 20 06 ) )
. He as se rt s t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t impr o pe r ly adm itted as self-authen

ticatin g a vi deotape pro duced by

a nei ghbor wi th admi tt ed ani mus t o wa r d h im. We agree wi th de f endan t, al though we con cl ude that a m

ore accurate ch

ara cteri za ti on of the err or is t ha t t he co ur t t r ea t ed t he vid eo t ap e a s s ub st an t ive ev ide nc e w he n t he fo un da t io n w o uld allo w o nly it s demonstrat iv

e use. We therefore r everse de f en da nt' s c onv i cti on a nd rem an d the m atter f ora new t r ial. I. BACKG ROUND Defend ant was char ged by indictment with the traf fi c off ense we have d esc ribed . Ac co rd ing to the in dictment, the off

ense took place on Septem ber 22, 2006.No. 2-- 08--0915

-2-

Salvatore Mo rici

was the St ate's fi

rst wit ness a t defend ant 's benc h t rial. H e t est ifi ed t hat he li ved on t he same blo ck a s de fendant . T hey did no t like eac h other. On Septem ber 22, 2006, he was dr iving do wn a r o ad wh en a v eh icle sw er ve d in t o his la ne , so t ha t it was head ing st ra ight t o wa r d h im, for cing him ont o t he unpaved shoulder. The driv er "fl ippe d the fi

nger" at him. He r eco gnized t he dri v er , w h o wa s a l on e i n th e v eh i cl e, as de f en da n t. Wh en traf f i c c l ea red , Mor i ci turn ed hi s v eh i cl e a roun d a nd tri ed to f ol l owdefend ant 's veh

ic le , a whi te mini van. The nex

t t im e he saw the van , it was agai

n com in g to ward hi

m. Morici

had a "ca m corder" in hi s veh ic le because he h ad been mak ing a r eco rd ingof his grandm ot her's propert y as
an in surance record. W

hen h e sa w the va n c omi ng towa rd him again, he go t ou t t he ca mcor der and started t aping. He t ape d de fendant as d efenda nt pulled t o t he side of t he r oa d and got out of t he van. At t r ial t he St at e s ho we d M o r ici a tape, which he sai d was a copy

of the tape f

rom h i s ca mcorder. He agreed that he had rev ie wed that copy and that i

t accurately

depi cted whathe h

ad see n aft er he turned on the cam

corder
. Morici sa i d th at, when he saw de fen

dant for the second ti

me , he cal le d the police. He spoke to them a t t he h ouse at which

defen dant had stopped

and late r t hat day he t oo k his ca mcor der t o t he police department, where an off ic er watched

the tape through the camcorder's viewf in der. Because he di d n ot wa nt th e p ol i ceto ha

ve the pa rt of the tap e w i th " pers ona

l i nf orm ati on, " h e di d n ot give t hem the t ape t hen. The Sta te a sk ed to sho w t he t ape , a nd t he co ur t allowe d it ove r d efenda nt 's o bject ion t hat t he f oun da ti on was i nsuf fi ci ent. Watchi

ng the tape, Mo rici said t hat a pe rso n on t he tap e i n wh i te p an ts and a bl ue sweatshi

rt was defen

dant. He agreed that the tape contained a skip; t his was be cau se he had set the recorder down and sh ut it off a fter def endan t had le ft the van

and gone i

nto t he h ouse.No. 2-- 08--0915

-3-

We revi ewed

the tap e. It starts with a bri ef sec t ion o f sta t ic, mo menta rily f lashes t o s omet hing
co lo r ful, and then start s with a very sh aky view o f a whi te va n. The who le ta pe is p er haps five mi nutes long. In the l ower right corner is a date (but not t im

e) stamp. At tria l , Morici adm i tted to a hi story

of bad blood between

himse lf an d d efe nd an t . So met ime in 20 05 , Mo r ici hired defend ant , a paint er , t o p aint the ups tai rs of hi s house, and Morici

bel ie ved that defend ant did n ot co m

pl ete t he job. In March 2006, the poli ce were ca lled t o t he s ce ne o f a phy si cal al terc ati on between Mor

i ci an d de f en da nt w he n th e tw o had a conf

rontat ion ove

r checks that Morici h ad ca sh ed f or d ef en da n t. Af ter t he ev ents of Septem

ber 22, 2006, there had

b een oth er i n ci den ts wi th de fen da nt - - "s o man y" t ha t Mo r ici co uld no t r ec all t he m all. The se includ ed a n incident in whi ch de fen da nt t o ld t he po lice t ha t Mo r ici ha d a t t ac ke d d efe nd an t at an Os we go sc ho o l. Morici t est ifi ed t hat , t o t he bes t of his r eco llectio n, t he da t e st amp wa s vi si bl e on the t ape when he sho wed it t o t he o ffice ro n t he 22 nd
. He sa id t ha t he did n ot own v i de o ed i ti n g e qui pm en t, buthad m

ade a co py of t he t ape by

co nnect ing t he ca mcor der t o his V CR. He g ave t he fo llowing responses wh

en cross-exam

in ed about how he ma

de the copy

an d w he t he rhe r et ain ed t he o r igin al: "Q. [Defen

se counsel :] When

you got home [f

rom taking the

tape to the police stati on], you wen

t t hrough a process by

whi ch y ou madeei

ther a copy or erased some other
mate rial to gi v e to th e of f i cer; i s th at c orre ct? A. [Morici :] No. I did n

ot erase some

of the m aterial . I made a copy

of the phy

si cal tape. Q. You

h av e v i de o ed i ti n g e qui pm en t at h om e, do y ou n ot? A . N o, I d

o n ot. * * *No. 2-- 08--0915

-4- Q. So y ou h av e two VC Rs

on e to th e oth er , i s th at h ow y ou d i d i t? A. No. Y ou plug in a cord from y our camcorder t o a VCR. * * * Q. If wewere to p l ay

the res t of the tap e, we w oul

d s eethe f ootag e of th e grandmother's possessions? A . N o, n o l onger y

ou woul dn ' t. Q. Why w o ul dn 't t ha t be if yo u' r e ma ki ng a s t r aig ht co py? A. Be ca us e I e ras ed tha t i nf orm ati on because i t's on t hat tap e because it had pe rsonal in form ation. We c ontinued v

ide o recor din

g because it had to go t o t he i

nsuran ce co mpany for the move for all

her personal Humm

els. Q. So y ou c an erase --af ter m ak i ng a s trai gh t cop y , y ou c an erase som e othe r informat ion? A. Af ter you make a

copy, any

tape recorder , any

thin g can b e erased. Q. So you're say

in g you erased t hose por tions on the co py y ou gave t o t he off

icers? A. No. I erased the po rt ions o ff m y tap e t hat came fr om t he VC R fro m the
cam corder. Q. The copy of

the vi deo tape t hat

you g ave to the off

ic ers i s not the same

exact copy of the vi deo that was in y

our video cam

era when you f il me d? A. Yes, it is. Q. You sai d yoursel

f that y ou erased port ions

of that video tape so t hat y our grandm ot her's item s wouldn 't actuall y b e on there?No. 2-- 08--0915

-5- A. T he ac t ua l ph ysic al t ap e is ap pr o ximat ely t ha t big t ha t fit s int o a c amc o r de r , is ap pr o ximat ely

t his big, and you downl

oad any in form ation f rom that tape into an actual VCR si ze be ca us e it is a smal

l er ta pe . On cey ou dow nl oad tha t i nf orm ati on f rom your cam corder to the tape , yo u have t he opt ion theref ore t o erase what's on y

our o rigi nal tape from y

our cam corder. Bu

t once you down

l oad i t on to that, you can't edit or er ase or anythin g because it's actuall y recorded right off

the origi nal tape. Q. Wh at y ou're t elling me is that you erased some

port ions of the sam

e vi deo tape t hat contained Mr. Flores' drivi ng and y our grandmother's possessions? A. No, I did not. I erased t he origi nal tape that was in m

y c am corder af ter I downloaded

it t o t ha t t ap e. We er as ed t ha t be ca us e I wa sn' t go in g to gi ve an in surance co mpany a vi deo tape o f persona

l posses sions and then

go into an i

nci dent li ke this thin g back in to personal possessions. * * * Q. So t he co py t hat you g ave t o t he po lice, if it wa s an e xa ct c opy of th e origi nal vi deo tap e i n y our cam er a, wo uld p re sumably also c ont ain, in ad dit ion t o M r. Flor es, t he depicti on o f Mr
. Flo r es ' d r ivin g a lleg ed ly, those port ions of y our gr andmo t her 's foo t age of t he pos se ss i on s th

at sh e h ad f or i n su ra n ce pu rp ose s;i sn

' t th at c orre ct? A. They v i ew ed th e s am e ex act tap e. They

onl y wa n ted to view t he in

form ation that
was the tap e t ha t wa s fr o m t his in cid en t . So , yes , it is t he sa me t ap e t ha t wa s inth e cam corder that was transferred over to the VHS cassette but they onl y wan ted t hose i mages ." Morici gave no other expl

anati on of how he produced the ev ide nce tape.No. 2-- 08--0915

-6-

Off ic er Richard Meszaros of the Pl

ai nf ie ld pol ic e testif ie d that he was di spatched to a house in Plai nf ie ld on Septem

ber 22, 2006. T here, he s poke to Morici , who pointed out defendan t. He verifi ed t hat defend ant 's l i cen se

wa s s us pen de d. Mori

ci ca me to the pol i cedepa rtm en t, an d M es za ros watched a

tape that, to the b est of

his rec oll ection, m atched the State' s tape . He di d not get a co py of the tape until

10 or 12 da ys la t er . His o r igin al r ep o rt , wr it t en aft er vie win g t he t ap e w it h Mo r ici,
sa id tha t the tap e h ad no time sta mp, bu t t he evide nce t ape did have one . H e sa id t hat , ha ving
rev i ew ed the tap e, h e c oul d n ot pos i ti ve l y i denti f y de f en da nt as th e p ers on de pi cte d. ( On re di re ct, he said that the person was dresse d si mi la rly to how defe

ndan t had been

late r t hat day, altho ugh he t hou ght th e swe atsh i

rt w as dif f eren t.) W h en h e w atch ed

th e ta pe wi th Mo r ici o n t he 22 nd , t he o nly part he saw

related to defen

dant's dri vi ng. Also, he had prev

iousl y res ponded to a repo rt o f an alt er ca t io n be t we en de fen da nt an d M o r ici. A fter Meszaros's testi

mony , the Stat e rested. The Stat e then discovered that it had neve r move d for admissio n of t he t ape . I t t hen as ked t o r eo pen e vidence for t he so le pur po se o f admitt ing t he t ape . T he co ur t allowe d it t o d o s o. Defend ant objec t ed t o t he fo unda t ion, saying t hat co nfli ct ing evi dence ex is ted as to the condi

tion of the tape--that is, the tim e stamp. Defend ant 's fi

rst witne ss wasJo anne Whe at on. She w as a neighbo r a nd friend of d efenda nt 's and, on the 22nd, she em

pl oy ed h i m to do p ai n ti n g a n d d ry -w al l i n g i n h er b as em en t. Defe ndan t had
an emp lo yee wo rkin g w i thhi m. W heaton was i

n the h ouse all day that day an

d did n ot thin k that defend ant had gone

outsi de al

one. A t 8 or 9 a. m., she drove hi

m i n hi s van to try to depo si

t a check. The courtquestioned W

heaton, who said that she par ked defend ant 's va n in h er dr ive wa y. S he sa id that she a nd de fendant la

ter asked defen

dant's em ploy ee to driv e the va n i nto the g arage ; they

were worried about what Morici was doin g out side the house.No. 2-- 08--0915

-7-

Defend ant al so test if

ie d. He said that he had n

ot driv en that day ; hi

s em ploy ee ha d d r ive n his
van t o Whe at on's . H e and his e mplo yee s ha d s t an da r d u nifo rms of whi te pant s and bl

ue sweatshirts. He des cri be d a h i story of p ro blems with M or ici--" plent y of incident s, bu t we c ou ld be here f oreve r." He admit t ed t hat t he t ape dep icte d Whea t on's house and that hi s li censehad b een sus

pended si nce 1996. Morici

testifi ed i n rebuttal. The c am

corder was admi

tt ed i nto evide nceto show what

loo king through the v

i ewf i nde r was l i ke. I n cl osing a rgumen

t, t he State argued tha

t the tap e " sp okef

or i tself ." T he t r ial c o nc lud ed o n Ma y 27 , 20 08 , an d t he co ur t sa id t ha t it wo uld is sue a wr itt en de cision. T ha t de cis io n c ame o n M ay 3 0, 20 08 ; t he co ur t fo un d d ef en da nt gu ilt y: "[T ]he cou

rt f i n dsth at t he vid eota

peev i denc e a s c orrob orate d by the tes ti mony of Ms. Wheat on is s ufficient fo r a finding tha t the State has m et i ts b urden of pr oo f here in and t he defend ant is found GUI LTY . T he co ur t spe cifically finds t hat t he ho st ili

t ies bet wee n t he defend ant and the Stat e's wi tness , Sal Mori ci, ar e ir r ele va nt t o t he co ur t 's f ind ing s he r ein based up o n t he ind ep en de nt t es t imo ny o f Ms
. Whe at o n a nd t he cle ar de pic ti oncontain ed wi thi n the vi deotape." Sentenci ng too k pla

ce on Jul y 20, 2008. The court noted t hat the rele van t stat ute required it to sent ence defend ant t o a t least 180 days' incar cer at ion. It not ed c onc er n for defend an t' s dependents, but also not ed t hat ot her co ur t s had given defend ant "gift s" in pu nish in g earli er violations. I t sa id t ha t de fen da nt 's a ct ua l inca r ce r at io n w o uld be t he sa me whether i t sentenced

him to 180 da y s i n j ai l asa c ond

i ti on of p ro bat ion o r se nt him to t he De par t ment of Corrections f or 18
m on th s; i t se n ten ce d h i m to 18 mon

th s' i m pri son men t.No. 2-- 08--0915

1 We note t hat the St ate has not argued t hat de fe n da

n t f orf ei ted th i s a rgum en t b y f ai l i n g to pr o pe r ly rai se i t in a posttrial

motion . The

State has f

orf ei ted the f orfe i ture arg um en t. Peo ple v. McKown , 23 6 Ill. 2d 278 , 30 8 (2 010 ); Pe o ple v. Ha rr is , 228 Il l . 2d 222 , 229-3 0 (200 8). -8- Defend ant fi

le d a m ot ion f or a new trial

on Jul y 28, 2008, wh

i ch th e S tate move d to strike as
un ti mel y . D ef en da n t explained t hat he had

not receive d the court 's wri tt en f in din g of guilt and h

ad le arned of i t o nl y through ch

ecki ng th e rec ord. The court said that the cl erk had sen t t he order prop erl y an d, f urth er, tha t cou ns el sh oul d have l ea rned of i t thr ough de f en da nt w he n th e p rob ati on off ic e calle d defen

dant to par tici

pate in preparation of the prese nt encing r epo rt . I n his mot ion, defend ant objec t ed t o t he late admissio n of t he video t ape and a sser t ed t hat Mo rici's t est imony was s o biased as to be i

ncredi ble. However, the court granted the Stat e's m ot ion to strike d ef

enda n t' s
m oti on. Also o n July 28, 200 8, defend ant file d a gene ric mo t ion t o r eco nsider t he se nt ence . T he courtdeni

ed this motion on Septem

ber 26 , 2008, sayi

ng that it m

igh t have i mposed the m

axi mum sentence , but was concerned f or his de penden ts. Defenda

nt tim el y a ppeal ed. On ap pe al, he ch ar ac t er ize s t he t r ial c o ur t as ha ving imp ro pe rly t re at ed t he t ap e a s s elfauthenti catin

g. The State argues that t he f oundation was s

uff ic i en t. 1 W e h ol d tha

t the trial court erred in adm ittin g the tape as substanti

ve ev ide nce, but that retrial

is not precluded. II. AN AL YSIS The cou rt, i n i ts w ri tten de ci si on , "specif

ical ly [found] t hat the host il

ities betwe en t he defend ant and t he Stat e's wi tness, Sal Mori ci , [w ere ] i

rre l evan t to the cou rt' s f i nd i ng s * ** b as ed

upon t he in dependen t t estim ony of Ms. Wh eaton [t hat

is , some corroborat ion of details of tim

e and pl ace] and t he clear dep ictio n co nt ained w ithin t he vid eo t ap e. " T he co ur t , by t his w o r din g, un amb igu o us lyNo. 2-- 08--0915

-9-

s tated th at i

t di d n ot tre at th

e ta pe si m pl y as il l ustra ti v e of Mor i ci ' s te sti mon y , but rathe r a s i n de pen den t, su bst an t ive ev ide nc e o f t he ev en t s o f Se pt emb er 22 , 20 06
. I llino is la w h as t r ad it io na lly restricted vi deotapes and other vis

ual reco rdings use as dem

onstrative ev

ide nce, that is , use as ill ust ra t ions o f wit ne ss es ' t es t imo ny. T he ca se s t ha t r ela x t ha t rule ar e a ll re lat ive ly re ce nt . T he y t ell
us that vis ual recordings, wh

en treated s ubs tanti ve l y , arereal e

vi dence requi

rin g a pr op er fou ndat ion, including evidenc e t hat t he pr op os ed e xhibi t i s s ub sta

n ti al l y una l tered. Peop l e v . Ta

y l or , 39 8 I ll. App. 3d 74, 87 (2010). That eviden ce was n ot present here. The foundation that Morici provided for the tape's i

ntroduct ion s atisf

ie d the req ui rem en ts f or t he cou rt to adm i t it as de m on strative ev

ide nce. The foundation for the adm is sion of a vi

sual recording as

dem onstrative ev

ide nce n eed show onl

y tha t t he proposedexh

ibit m atches a wit ness's
re co llectio n: "A

su fficie nt fo un da t io n is la id fo ra s t ill photogra ph , a m oti on p i ctu

re, ora vi deotape by testim ony of any person wi

th personal

knowle dge of the photographed obje ct at a t ime relev ant to t he i ssuesthat t he ph ot ographis a fai

r and accurate representation of the obje ct at t ha t t ime[
. ] " ( E mph as is in o r igin al. ) M. Gr ah am, Cle ar y & G r ah am' s H an db o o k o f I llino is Evi den ce §4 01.8, a

t 135 (8th ed. 20 04). Mo rici's vid eo t ap e w as ad miss ible as d emons t ra t iveevi dence , as he t es t ified t ha t t he t ap e t ruly and ac cu ra tel y de pi cte d w h at he observed

on Septembe

r22, 2006. (The fact that Morici 's tape had been edi ted would go t o its weight and not t o its admi ssibil ity as demonstrat iv

e evidence. 2 R. Hunter, Trial

Hand book for Il

l i noi s Law yers--Cri m i nal §58:7 (8th e d. 2002 ).) The diff ic ulty aris es out of t he t rial co ur t 's de cision t o u se t he vi deotape as ev

i den ce i nde pen den t of the testi mony . That deci si on, as we will

expl ai n, am ounted to treat in

g the tape as substanti

ve evidenc e, des pit e t he la ckNo. 2-- 08--0915

-10-

of a proper fou ndat ion. Defend ant 's ar gument t hat t he co ur t t re at ed t he t ape as se lf-aut hent icat ing i s a f ai r des cri pti on of the probl em . In Tay l or , t hi s court required a chain of custo dy as part of the "silent witness" f o un da ti on (f oun da ti on for a recordin

g when there isno par ty

to tes ti f y to the ac cu rac y of the rec ordi ng) f or intr od ucing an unmanne d su rve ill ance video , be cau se w e r eco gnized t hat a visua l recordi ng, pa r t icu lar ly

i n a d i gi tal f orm at, i s s us ce pti b l e to editin

g and "out right fakery ." Tay l or , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 93. Th

i s ca se prese

nts th e sa me con cern . B ec au se thef

ou ndation f

or admi ssion of visual recordings

as demon strati

v e ev i den ce

i s i n adeq ua te to ensu reth ei r re l i ab i l i ty as sub stantiv

e evi dence, it i s nece ssa

ry to articulate a foundati on for thei r admission as sub stantiv

e evi dence. W hen we say "vi sua l recordi ng," we m

ean ei ther a na l og or di gi

tal stil l photographs , motion

pictures , or vi

deos. We beg in by obser ving

tha t Ill i noi s l aw rec ogn ize s a di sti nc ti on bet wee n demo nst ra t ive and ot her evi dence, va ri ousl y des cri be d as"rea

l ," "probati

ve ," or "s ubs tanti ve ." "Dem

onstrative ev

ide nce hasno probative v

al ue i n i tself . It ser ves, rather, as a visual aid t o t he jur y in compr ehend ing t he verbal test im ony of a wi

tness." Ci sari

k v. Palos Comm

uni ty Hospi tal , 144 Il l . 2d 339 , 341 (1 991). In Il l i noi s, the use of v i sua l recordi ngs as a ny thi ng b ut dem onstra tiv e ev i den ce is a ra ri ty. Pho t og ra phs have been

adm is si ble evi dence at lea st sinc e 1 88 3, wh en t he su pr eme co ur t he ld that a p ho t o gr ap h o f a

not e, ident ifi

ed by a ba nk

cl erk as correctly

representi

ng the words of the note,
wa s a dmis sible to show the words , but n ot the si m i l i tude of the h andwri tin g, on the note. Duffin v. Pe o ple , 107 Il

l . 113, 11 9-20 (1 883). In Du ffin , the defen dant was charged, int er alia , wit h fo r ge ry, and t he prosecution off

ered in evi dence both the promi ssory n

ot e alle ged to have been

forged and a photo graphed

copy of i t. Du ffin , 10 7 I ll. at 1 19. W he n th e b an k of f i cers noti ce d that the i

nk on t he origi nal not e wa s fading , they

h ad th e n ote ph oto graphed. Du ffin , 1 07 I ll. at 120 . Aft er t heNo. 2-- 08--0915

-11-

photo graph

was taken, the origi

nal faded s o t hatthe writi

ng be cam e i ll egi ble, and the court hel d that t he ph otogra ph i c c opy wa s th e s am e a s p arol evidenc e o f the wo rd s o n t he note. Du ffin , 107 Ill . at 120. Th e c ourt n

oted tha t the photogra ph wa s n ot i ntr oduc ed to prov e the f orge ry by a c om pa ri son of h an dw ri ti n gs ; i n oth er wo rds, i

t was n ot in troduced as su

bstanti ve evi den ce. Du ffin , 107 Ill . at 119. However, the court did n ot opine that t he ph

ot ograp h w ou ld h

ave b een i

nadm is si ble as substantive evi

dence, only

that "t here was no such purpo se or use. " Du ffin , 107 Ill . at 119 - 20. The hold ing in Lake Erie & Western R.R. Co. v . Wi l son, 189 Ill . 89, 95-96 (1901), il lus trat es
ou r c ou rt s' ea r ly appro ach to visual recordings:

"The general

rule is, that ph o t o gr ap hs s t an d o n t he sa me footing as a di agram, m

ap, pl an ormodel , and that a photo graph i s a legi tim ate mode of provi

ng a condi tion whi ch can be s hown b

y a representation of that sort. It rests, to some ex tent, upo n the cr ed i t o f witnesses, in

the sam e w ay a s a ma p, p l at or p l an ; b ut that f ac t f urn i sh esno r ea son f or exclud ingi

t as ev i den ce. [C i tation .] *** The pr elimi nar y pro of o f the co rr ect ness o f the pic ture, t he ability of t he o per at or and t he ac cur acy o f the instr ument is add re ssed t o t he
cou rt, and i t i s n ot er ror t o ex cl ude ph otogr

aph s ta ken a l ong ti me af ter an ac ci den t, where t he s it ua t io n ha s be en ch an ge d a nd t he o pe r at o r is s ho wn t o be ine xp er ien ce d. [ Cit at ion. ] In t his cas e t he pr elimi

nar y pro of w as full and c omp lete , a nd t he photographs are i n the rec ord and sh ow a perfectly

natural repre sen tation of ra i l road tracks an

d sur round i ngs . The re was not hingin t he ev id en ce no rin t he ph o t o gr ap hs t he mse lve s t en di ng t o di sc r ed it t he irac cu r ac y. Under such conditions, photo graphs of thi ngs wh ic h cann ot be produced i

n court as evidence
aregen eral l y adm i ssi bl e i n evi den ce, the sa me as a m ap or pl an . [Ci tation .] *** In this case t he pho t og ra phs w er e an impo rt ant me ans of provin g the condi

tion of the track, and, underNo. 2-- 08--0915

-12-

t he circumstances, we t hink t he de fendant ha d a righ t to ha ve the j ury se e them i n c onn ec ti on wi th the other ev i den ce, a nd i t was e rror to excl

ude them ." Two po int s a r e n o t ab le inthi s dec i si on. Th e f i rs t i s th e re qui rem en t of som e a uthen ti ca ti on of t he pho t og ra ph- -"t he co rr ect ness o f the pict ur e, t he ability of t he o per at or and t he acc ur acy o f the i nstrumen t." W i l son, 189 Il

l . at 96. Th e s ec ond

i s th e cha racteri za ti on of pho t og ra phs a s eq uivalent to dia gr ams , map s, pla ns, mo de ls, an d p lat s. On ly the second rem

ai ned a pa rt o f I llino is la w. While t he W i l son

courtspo ke in t er ms of t he pho t og ra phs " pr oving " t he co ndit ion o f the track, it also m ade t he pho t og ra phs s ubject t o t he cr edibility of t est imony, which indica t es a demo nst ra t ive use of t he photographs
. Fo llowing o n t he t r ad it io n ma rke d b y W i l son, a cha racteristi c dec i si on f rom the m i ddl e of t he last century h

el d: "Pho t og ra phs *** ar e no t evidenc e in the mselves, but ar e allow ed fo r t he pu rp os e o f enabling t he jury t o u nder st and and app l y the testim

ony . [ Cit at io n. ] Ph o t o gr ap hs s t an d o n t he sa me foo t ingas a d iag r am, ma

p, plan or mod el, a nd a p hot og ra ph is a leg itimat e mod e o f pro ving conditions ***." Foster v. Bil bruck , 20 Il

l . Ap p. 2d 17 3, 183 ( 1959)
. Howev er, unl ike t he W i l son

co urt, t he Foster co ur t did no t re quir e any evide nce o f how t he pho t og ra phs at issue

had b een produced. It admi tt ed them on a news ph

ot ographer's testim

ony tha t he had taken them

on the day

of the acci

dent that was the

sui t's su bj ec t an d a hi gh wa y pa trol officer 's testi m ony that the y accuratel y repre sen ted the sce ne . Foster , 20 Ill . App. 2d at 183-84. In contrast t o t he Foster court , our supreme cour t t re at ed p ho t og ra phs a s su bst ant ive evi dence in People v . Speck , 41 Ill. 2d 177, 203 ( 1968) ( holdi ng that t he photo graphs h el ped to establi sh t he de gr ee o f forc e us ed by t he killer) , a nd in People v . Morgan , 1 42 I ll . 2d 410, 461-62No. 2-- 08--0915

-13-

(1991) (t o pro ve part of the cor pu s del i cti of t he mur der ). In Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 15 2 I ll. 2d 229, 263 (1992 ), our supreme court came out and sai d that "[p]hoto graphs, l

ike any evi dence, m ay be adm itted int o evid enc e w hen au t hen t ica t ed and re leva nt eit her t o illust ra t e o r c o rr o bo ra t e t he t es t imon y of a witness, or t o a ct as p ro bat iveor re al ev i denc e of what the photogr aph depi cts." Havi ng m ade i t clear that vi sual

recordings c an b e substantive e vi den ce, the court di

d not opi ne on the ne ces sary f oun da ti on f or adm i tti n g th em as suc h. Indeed, com

me ntator s recogni

zi ng that vi sual

recordings
co uld be adm i tted as s ubs tanti ve evi den ce h av e pre sented t he f

oundation requi

remen t t hat vi sual recordings

accurately

dep ic t t hat wh ich

they purpor t t o depict as applyi ng across t he board. 2 R. Hun ter, T r ial H an db o o k fo rI llino is La wy er s- -C ri m i n al §5 8: 7 ( 8th

ed . 20 02) ; M . Grah

am , Ha nd book of Il l i noi s Ev i den ce §4 01.8 (8 th ed . 2004)
. Yet this foundation is

in adequate for adm

ittin g a vi sual recording as

substanti ve ev ide nce wh ereno witness was avai lab le to t estify

that t he visual recording was a true an d a ccura te d ep i cti on of what i t purpo rted t o depict. The sem in al case in this regard is Un

i ted State s v . Ta

y l or , 530 F.2d 639, 64 1- 42 ( 5t h C ir. 19 76 )
. T he ca se co nc er ne d p ho t o gr ap hs t ak en by an au t o mat ic st ill ca mer a in
a bank. The securi

ty sy stem caused the cam

era to st art t aki

ng photographs onl

y a fter a robber l

ocked the em ploye es i n the v aul t, so that no wi

tnes ses were av ail ab l e to testi f

y that the photographs

were accurate. The p ros ecuti

on pr es en ted testi mon y "a s to the ma

nne r in whi ch the f il m was i nstalle d in t he cam era, how the came

ra was act ivate d, t he fact t hat t he fil m was r emove d immediat ely after t he
r o bbe ry, t he ch ain o f it s p o ss es sio n, an d t he fac t t ha t it was prope rl y dev el ope d a n d c on tact pri n ts
ma de from i t. " Tay l or , 530 F.2d at 642. The Court of Appea ls hel d that "such testim

ony f urni shed sufficient au

the nti ca ti on f orthe adm

is sion of the contact prints in to evidence." Tay

l or , 530 F.2d at 642. T he Thi

rd District o f our Appell

ate Co urt adopt ed this "si len t witness" theor y as a

means f orNo. 2-- 08--0915

-14-

aut hent icat ingvisual re co rd ings und er simi lar cir cumst ance s in People v . Vaden , 33 6 I ll. App. 3d 893, 898 (2003). This court foll owed Vaden

i n our Tay l ordeci sion. Tay l or , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 86. Our dec ision in Tay

l oris in structive i n resol vi ng the i ssue of the prope r f ou ndat ion fo r t he i ntr oduc ti on o f Mo r ici's vid eo t ap e a s s ub st an t ive ev id ence, b ecaus e i t cl ari f i ed tha t the ri sk of mod ifi cat ion, manipulat ion, and fabrica t ion o f im age s is pr ese nt ev en wh en a live wit ne ss is a va ilable t o t est ify t o t he co ndit ion o f the item, and because there, as here, a copy of

a vi deotape rat her than t he origi nal was i ntroduced
. In Tay

l or , t he de f

en da n t, w h o wa s ch arge d wi

th th ef t of prope rty wor th lessth an $3 00 , mo ve d t o ba rint r o du ct io n o f a v ide o t ap e t ha t ap pa r en t ly sho we d h im t ak ing th e pr o pe r t y. A p o lice o ffice rha d p ur ch as ed dig it al v ide o eq uip men t an d p lac ed it in aclo ck r ad io in the victim's off

i ce. Tay l or , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 77. The camera s en t a w ire les s s ig nal

to a wireless transm itter, whic h wa s c onn ec ted to a di gi tal vi de o rec orde

r (D VR ) th at re cord

ed the i mag esf rom t he cam era. Tay l or , 398 Ill . App. 3d

at 77. The camera h

ad a m ot ion s ensor so that anobjec t moving in fr ont of i

t start ed the rec ordi

ng process . Tay

l or , 39 8 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 7 7. A

t tri al, the S tate in tro duced a copy of the rec ordi

ng f rom th e DVR . In

hold ing t hat it w as e rr or t o a dmit t he r eco rd ing i n to ev ide nc e, we he ld

t hat t he requi

rem en ts f or a si l en t-wi tnes s f ounda tion m ust b e m et. Tay l or , 398 I ll. App. 3d at 86. Of cen

tralcon cern to us wa s th at th e S tate fai le d to address the f

act that t he VHS tape it i ntroduced i

nto ev i den ce was a d

i gi tal -to-anal og copy

of the origi

na l recordi ng. Tay l or , 398 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 87
. T he St at e fa iled t o pr o vid e evidence thatthe tap e w asnot th

e p roduct of t amper ingor edi

tin g. Tay l or , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 87. We co nclude d t hat t he o nly way to pr ot ect t he i n teg ri ty of the evi dence was

to require a

ch ain of c ustody as p art of th

e f ounda tion
. Tay l or , 39 8 I ll. App. 3d at 90.No. 2-- 08--0915

-15-

Here, t he o riginal re co rd ing in Mor ici's camco rd er did no t app ear t o be a di gital recording. Howev er, the im ages t he cam

co rd er cap t ur ed w er e just as su sce pt ible to alte ra t ion in t he co pying pro cess; in

deed, Morici

testifi ed t ha t t he co py w as alt er ed by o mit t ing po rt io ns o f t he o r igin al. Co ns eq ue nt ly, the f

ounda tion f or adm i ttin g the tape as sub stan tiv e ev i den ce re qui red s ome thi ng m ore rigorous t ha n Mo r ici's t es t imo ny t ha t t he vid eo in evi dence truly

and accuratel

y de picted that whic

h i t purported to depi

ct. The st anda rd s for t he admissio n of r eal evide nce p ro t ect aga inst t amper ing and fabr icat ion: "Be f ore real e vi dence ma y b e adm i tted at tr i al, the S tate

m ust prov i de

an adeq ua te foundation, either

through testimony

or stipulation, that establi shes that t he i tem sou gh t to be intr od uce d is t he ac t ual it em involved in t he allege d o ffense and t hat its c ond itio n i s su bst an t ially

unch anged. [Ci

tation.] Where an

item possesses un

ique an d r ea dily id en t ifiab le ch ar ac t er ist ics an d it s s ub st an ce is relati vel y i mpe rvious to chan

ge, an adeq ua te f oun da ti on is l ai d by tes ti mon y t ha t t he it em s o ug ht t o be ad mit t ed is t he sa me o ne r ec o ve r ed an d in
su bst an t ially

t he same c o nd it io n a s w he n r ec o ve r ed ; ho we ve r , if t he it em is no t r ea dily ide nt ifiab le o ris s us ce pt ible to al tera ti on b y tam peri ng orcontami

nation, i ts chai n of cus to dy must b e e sta b l i sh ed wi th suf f i ci en t com pl ete n es s to r en de rit impr o ba ble that t he origi nal item hasbeen exch anged, contam

in ated, o r subj ectedto tampering." People v . Wh i rl , 351 Ill . App. 3d 464 , 470-7 1 (200 4). In Tay l or , we sa id

that a vi sual

recording is m

ore li ke a baggi

e of cocai ne than a gun an d that
an adeq ua te ch ai n of cu sto dy wi l l gen eral l y b e n ec es sa ry to authen tic ate a v i sua l recordi ng. Tay l or , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 95. Therefore, the videotape here was i nadm is si ble by real-ev ide nce standa

rds because i t was a l tered. Morici

testifi ed that the

re ha d b ee n a diffe r en t t ap e, t he o r igin al, th at in cl udedNo. 2-- 08--0915

-16-

footage he h

ad taken f or insuran ce purposes; i

n other words, t he ev

ide nce tape wasa copy

whose
con ten ts Mo r ici ha d a lt er ed fr o m t ho se in t he o r igin al' s. Be yo nd t ha t , Mo r ici s ee med t o go o ut o f his way to mak e obs cure th

e proce ss b

y whi ch he produce d the

evi den ce tape , s o recons tru ct ing t he proces s tha

t he u sed i s a m atter of g ues swork. An altered cop y produced by an un explain ed pro cess is

not accep table as subst a nt ive evi dence. In addi

tion, the tec hn

ol ogical sh i f t to digi tal vi sual rec ordi ng s, w i th th e p rev al en ceof image- alte ring com

pute r progra m s, p utsa b urden on the tri al courtto appl

y real -evidence stan

dards in a way that resp onds

to the tech

nol ogi cal contex t. W e there f

ore h ol d that a n a de qua te f oun da ti on must sh ow th at th e or i gi n al h as b een pr es er v ed wi th out ch an

ge , a ddi ti on , or d el eti on an d th at, if a copy is intr od uce d int o e vidence , t her e must be a c og ent explana t ion o f any cop ying su ch t hat t he courti s sa

tis f i ed that duri

ng th e copy i ng pro cess there we re no cha nge s, ad di tions, or del

eti ons. Ret ur ningto the tape here, we s t at e in summary t hat t he f oun da ti on f or de mons trati ve us e of t he tape was i

ns uf f i cien t for its sub stantiv

e use. Further, al

though it m

igh t be p rope r to p er

m i t a witnessto il l

ustra te his or her te sti

mony wi th an edi ted rec ordi

ng, us e o f su ch a r ec o r din g is incons iste nt wi

th th e ru l esf ort he a dmiss io n o f su

bs tan ti ve ev i denc e. " Th e adm

i ss i on o f ev ide nc e is wit hin th e s oun d di scre ti on

of th e tr ial c ourt , and its rul

in g should not be reversed ab sent a clear sho wing of a

bus e of that discre

tion ." People v . Tenney

, 205 Ill . 2d 411, 436 (2002). Here, t he trial courtabused its dis cr etion when i t co nsidered t he tape as substantive evi dence, and we reverse def endan t's c onv i cti on. The que st ion r emains whet her t he St at e sho uld be allowe d t o r et ry de fendant . " The do ub le je opardy cl ause precl

udes the State from retryi

ng a def endan t after a revi ewi

ng court has determi

ned that the evi

dence in tro duced at trial

was legal ly insuff ici ent to convict, but t he double j eopar dy cl auseNo. 2-- 08--0915

-17-

does not preclude re t ria l o f a de fen da nt wh o se co nvic t io n ha s be en se t as ide be ca us e o f an er r o rin t he procee di

ngs l eadi ng to the conv i cti on." People v . Howard , 387 Il l . Ap p. 3d 99 7, 1006 -07 (20 09). In the present case, i

t was error to adm

it the vi deotape as substantiv

e evi dence. However, the tape
was ad miss ible as demo nst ra t ive evidenc e. Mo re ove r, t he co ur t was free t o c re dit Mo rici's t est imony and the evi

dence of defen dant's sus pended l i cense. Th

us , th e Sta

te p res en ted suf f i ci en t ev i denc e of defend ant 's guil

t. See Pe opl

e v . Si gu en za-B ri to , 2 35 Ill. 2d 21 3, 22 8 ( 20 09 ) ( t he " t es t imon y of a single wit ness, if posit ivean d c r ed ible, is s uffic ien t t o co nvic t , ev en t ho ug h it is co nt ra dict ed by t he def endan t"). Defend ant arg

ue s th at the p roof

was i nsuf fi ci ent becaus e, whereasMorici's tape sh ows a man wi th a dist inct ba ld spo t , t he o ffi cial Dep ar t ment of Co rr ect ions p hot og ra ph o f him sho ws no such ba ld spot. We r eje ct t his argumen t because t he ang le of t he De par t ment of Corrections photograph is not such that we can

tel l wh eth er de f en da n t h as a b al d s pot. Up o n c ar efu l re vie w o f t he r ec o r d in t he l i gh t m ost f av ora b l e to t he Stat e (see People v . Bil lups , 384 Ill . App. 3d 844, 846 (2008)), we det er mine th at th e ev i den ce

wa s s uf f i ci en t to supp ort t he co ur t 's f

ind ing o f gu ilt y beyo nd a r ea so na ble doubt a nd th at retri al wil l not ex pose def endan t to doubl e j eopardy

. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, we reverse t he findingo f gu ilt an d r ema nd t he mat t er fo ra n ew t r ial. Reversed and rem

anded. McL AR EN an d BUR KE, J J., con cur.