Case Name: PEOPLE v. McDANIEL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-08-25
Citations: 99 Mich. App. 582
Docket Number: Docket No. 44734
Parties: PEOPLE v McDANIEL
Judges: Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and Beasley and G. R. Deneweth, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 99
Pages: 582–586

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v McDANIEL
Docket No. 44734.
Submitted June 9, 1980, at Lansing.
Decided August 25, 1980.
Bobbie McDaniel was charged with taking possession and driving away a motor vehicle, and receiving or concealing stolen property of value in excess of $100. He was convicted on the former charge, Genesee Circuit Court, Harry B. McAra, J. He appeals, alleging the trial court erred in admitting a videotape of his selling an automobile to an undercover operation into evidence without viewing it to determine whether its contents were more probative than prejudicial. Held:
The videotape was very probative of defendant’s guilt of the charged offense, and it was no more prejudicial than any evidence linking a defendant to a crime. Moreover, it was part of the res gestae and was not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it might have tended to show that defendant had been involved in other criminal transactions. Defendant did not claim on appeal that any unfair prejudice actually resulted from its admission. The trial court did not err in admitting the videotape into evidence.
Affirmed.
T. M. Burns, P.J., dissented. He would hold that a viewing by the trial court of a videotape prior to its admission into evidence in a criminal case in order to determine its probative value relative to its prejudicial effect is necessary for a proper exercise of discretion and that the admission of the videotape without such a viewing was clearly erroneous.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Evidence — Res Gestae — Admissibility.
An item of evidence which is part of the res gestae is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it might have tended to show that the defendant had been involved in other criminal transactions, and while prejudicial, its admission is not clearly erroneous unless it is shown that unfair prejudice actually resulted from its admission.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 253, 260.
[2] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 785.
[3] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 787.
Dissent by T. M. Burns, P.J.
2. Criminal Law — Evidence — Videotapes — Admissibility.
Admission into evidence at criminal trials of photographs or videotapes is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
3. Criminal Law — Evidence — Videotapes — Judicial Discretion.
A viewing by a trial court of a videotape prior to its admission into evidence in a criminal case in order to determine its probative value relative to its prejudicial effect is necessary for a proper exercise of discretion.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert E. Weiss, Prosecuting Attorney, Donald A. Kuebler, Chief, Appellate Division, and Edwin R. Brown, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Peter C. Payette, P.C., for defendant on appeal.
Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and Beasley and G. R. Deneweth, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Beasley, J.
Defendant was charged with taking possession and driving away a motor vehicle, contrary to MCL 750.413; MSA 28.645, and receiving or concealing stolen property of value in excess of $100, contrary to MCL 750.535; MSA 28.803. He was convicted of the former charge by a jury and sentenced to not less than 40 months nor more than 60 months in prison. Defendant now appeals as of right.
Defendant claims that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion by permitting the jury to view a videotape of defendant selling an automobile to an undercover storefront operation con ducted by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Defendant had objected to the admission of the tape in evidence because it included conversations mentioning other criminal transactions in which he might have been involved. The trial court admitted the tape without viewing it. Defendant says that since the trial court had not viewed the tape prior to ruling on its admission, it could not properly determine whether its contents were more probative than prejudicial.
The videotape of the defendant selling an automobile to the undercover storefront operation was very probative of defendant's guilt of the charged offenses. While this evidence was prejudicial in the sense that any direct evidence linking a defendant to a crime is prejudicial, no claim is made on appeal that any unfair prejudice actually resulted from the showing of the tape to the jury. Moreover, the videotape was a recording of part of the res gestae. As such, it was not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it might have tended to show that defendant had been involved in other criminal transactions.
We find the trial court was not clearly erroneous in admitting the videotape in evidence.
Affirmed.
G. R. Deneweth, J., concurred.
People v Castillo, 82 Mich App 476, 479-480; 266 NW2d 460 (1978).