Opinion ID: 1947983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Proper Authentication

Text: The authentication of photographic evidence prior to its admission seems to contemplate proof that the photograph is a substantially correct representation of the matters ... offered in evidence, and this includes an `identification' or statement as to what the photograph shows. M.L. Cross, Annotation, Authentication or Verification of Photograph as Basis for Introduction in Evidence, 9 A.L.R. 2d 899, 900 (1950) (hereinafter Cross). For authentication, a witness must identify the persons, places, or things shown in the photograph or videotape. Id. at 905. The person testifying need not be the photographer, because the ultimate object of an authentication is to establish its accuracy or correctness. To that end, any person with the requisite knowledge of the facts represented in the photograph or videotape may authenticate it. Id. at 912. An authenticator need not even have been present at the time the photograph was taken, so long as the witness can verify that the photograph accurately represents its subject. Benjamin V. Madison III, Seeing Can Be Deceiving: Photographic Evidence in a Visual Age  How Much Weight Does it Deserve? 25 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 705, 708 (1984). The question of whether a photograph is sufficiently accurate to justify its admission is a preliminary question for the trial court. Cross, supra, 9 A.L.R. 2d at 915. To authenticate a photograph, testimony must establish that: (1) the photograph is an accurate reproduction of what it purports to represent; and (2) the reproduction is of the scene at the time of the incident in question, or, in the alternative, the scene has not changed between the time of the incident in question and the time of the taking of the photograph. Garafola v. Rosecliff Realty Co., Inc., 24 N.J. Super. 28, 42, 93 A. 2d 608, 615-16 (App.Div. 1952). With technological innovation, motion pictures entered the scene and presented an evidence-authentication challenge for trial courts. As McCormick noted: Motion pictures, when they were first sought to be introduced in evidence, were frequently objected to and sometimes excluded on the theory that they afforded manifold opportunities for fabrication and distortion. Even those older decisions which upheld the admission of motion pictures appear to have done so on the basis of elaborate foundation testimony detailing the methods of taking, processing, and projecting the film. [II McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 214, at 17 (emphasis added).] The prosecutor appears to have used that approach by having Investigator Meyers detail the process used in creating the videotape footage. As motion pictures have become less of a novelty, a trend has developed away from the more exacting method used to introduce motion pictures towards a simpler method much like that used for photographs: More recently, however, it appears to have become more generally recognized that, as with the still photograph, the reliability and accuracy of the motion picture need not necessarily rest upon the validity of the process used in its creation, but rather may be established by testimony that the motion picture accurately reproduces phenomena actually perceived by the witness. [ Ibid. (emphasis added).] In practical terms, the authentication of a videotape is a direct offshoot of the authentication of photographic and motion picture evidence. See People v. Heading, 39 Mich. App. 126, 131, 197 N.W. 2d 325, 329 (1972) (holding videotape admissible on same type of foundation as motion picture because [a] video tape is nothing more than a motion picture synchronized with a sound recording). In New Jersey, State v. Nemesh, 228 N.J. Super. 597, 550 A. 2d 757 (App.Div. 1988), certif. denied, 114 N.J. 473, 555 A. 2d 600 (1989), cites II McCormick on Evidence § 214 (3d ed. 1984), for the proposition that a videotape should be evaluated for admissibility just as a motion picture and a similar foundation must be laid. 228 N.J. Super. at 604 n. 3, 550 A. 2d at 761 n. 3. Indeed, as defendant recognizes in his brief, videotape evidence has now become commonplace in criminal cases. See, e.g., State v. Rodriquez, 264 N.J. Super. 261, 270-73, 624 A. 2d 605, 610-12 (App.Div. 1993) (stating victim became ill after direct examination, videotape of cross-examination at hospital played for jury); State v. Russo, 243 N.J. Super. 383, 391, 579 A. 2d 834, 838-39 (App.Div. 1990) (involving thirty-one-minute videotape of crime scene), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 322, 598 A. 2d 882 (1991); Nemesh, supra, 228 N.J. Super. at 603-04, 550 A. 2d at 760-61 (discussing videotape of intoxicated driver performing breathalyzer and coordination tests); State v. Bottomly, 208 N.J. Super. 82, 86, 504 A. 2d 1223, 1225 (Law Div. 1984) (showing videotape of defendant's belligerent and antagonistic demeanor after arrest for drunken driving), aff'd, 209 N.J. Super. 23, 506 A. 2d 1237 (App.Div. 1986); State v. Bunting, 187 N.J. Super. 506, 508-10, 455 A. 2d 531, 532-33 (App.Div.) (showing surveillance film of robbery of store), certif. denied, 95 N.J. 181, 470 A. 2d 407 (1983). Once a videotape is established as relevant evidence, it is generally admissible under New Jersey's Evidence Rule 801(e). Evidence Rule 801(e) defines a writing as: pictures, drawings, photographs, symbols, sounds, or combinations thereof ... set down or recorded by .. . photographing, ... mechanical or electronic recording, or by any other means, and preserved in a perceptible form. Evidence Rule 1001(b) provides that [p]hotographs include still photographs, X ray films, video tapes, motion pictures and similar forms of reproduced likenesses. Although a videotape qualifies as a writing, to be admissible in evidence the videotape must be properly authenticated. Evid. R. 901. Evidence Rule 901 provides that the authentication requirement is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is what its proponent claims. The two authoritative cases on authentication of videotapes in New Jersey are Balian v. General Motors, 121 N.J. Super. 118, 296 A. 2d 317 (App.Div. 1972), certif. denied, 62 N.J. 195, 299 A. 2d 729 (1973), and Nemesh, supra, 228 N.J. Super. 597, 550 A. 2d 757. In Balian, the defense introduced into evidence motion pictures of a test drive of an automobile similar to the one involved in that products-liability controversy. 121 N.J. Super. at 125, 296 A. 2d at 320-21. The motion picture was made at the direction of General Motors' expert to confirm his testimony that the automobile was still steerable even if it was in the same condition that plaintiffs contended their automobile had been in. Id. at 122-23, 296 A. 2d at 319-20. The Appellate Division held that motion pictures are generally admissible if properly authenticated with: (1) evidence relating to the circumstances surrounding the taking of the film; (2) evidence detailing the manner and circumstances surrounding the development of the film; (3) evidence in regard to the projection of the film; and (4) testimony by a person present at the time the motion pictures were taken that the pictures accurately depict the events as that person saw them when they occurred. Id. at 125, 296 A. 2d at 320-21. In Nemesh, supra, the defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor and with a suspended license. 228 N.J. Super. at 601, 550 A. 2d at 759. The State introduced a videotape of the administration of a breathalyzer and coordination test conducted by the arresting officer. Id. at 604, 550 A. 2d at 761. When the defendant challenged the authenticity of the videotape, the court applied the Balian criteria for proper authentication. The Appellate Division upheld the admission of the videotape because [i]n this case, a police officer testified that the tape accurately and faithfully depicted the administration of the breathalyzer test and the physical tests as he saw them that evening. As to a chain of custody, the prosecutor was prepared to produce the custodian of records, but the municipal judge decided that to be unnecessary ... Admission of the videotape was well within the municipal court judge's discretion. [ Id. at 605 n. 3, 550 A. 2d at 761 n. 3 (emphasis added).] Unlike this case, both Balian and Nemesh present situations in which the event on film was the actual event that was the subject of testimony. Nevertheless, those opinions clearly point us to the indisputable conclusion that the videotape of the Fabulous Meat Center was improperly authenticated. In Balian, the experiment of the similar car with steering problems was on the videotape and was the subject of the expert's testimony. The expert conducting the experiment could properly authenticate the video even though he had not been at the scene of the original accident because he was presenting evidence solely of the experiment. Similarly, the Nemesh videotape captured the actual breathalyzer test at issue. The police officer who administered the test could properly authenticate the videotape by testifying that the videotape accurately depicted the scene at the time of the test. In this case, however, the videotape was not rolling at the time of the crime. An investigator who had not witnessed the crime filmed it three days later, and that investigator learned of the positions of the witnesses only through interviews with other investigators. Because the videotape is relevant only if based on its representation of the positions of the witnesses at the time of the crime, only a witness to the actual crime can properly authenticate that the video accurately represents the scene of the crime. Investigator Meyers could testify only that the video accurately represented what others had told him the scene of the crime looked like. Therefore, Meyers failed properly to authenticate the video because he was not a person present at the time the crime occurred who could testify that the videotape accurately depicted the events as he had seen them when they occurred. Both Paula Crawford and Brian Kennedy, on the other hand, could have authenticated the video by testifying that it accurately represented the scene as they had witnessed it. Unfortunately, the State did not show either Crawford or Kennedy the tape.