They don't need some witness to say I've looked at the tape and this is who I think it is. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Commonwealth proffered a jury instruction regarding the permissible inference allowed from evidence of the recent possession of stolen goods. Appellant objected to the instruction, but the trial judge overruled the objection and gave the instruction to the jury. During its closing argument, the Commonwealth made reference to the Target tape. Appellant objected on the ground that the tape was never admitted into evidence.
Evidence is material if it relates to a matter properly at issue.
Although the record is somewhat unclear as to whether the Target tape was admitted into evidence, the record clearly indicates the jury viewed the tape. The content of the Target tape was relevant evidence because it depicted the Target parking lot just after the victim's stolen credit card had been used in that store on the same day the card was stolen. Although the Target tape was not conclusive proof that the same person used the victim's credit card at both the Food Lion and Target stores, it was evidence relevant to that determination. Thus, it was not necessary that a witness identify appellant on the Target tape. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in allowing the jury to view the content of the Target videotape.