Opinion ID: 2639585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of a Videotape of the Crime Scene

Text: Defendant sought to admit a videotape of the crime scene. After viewing the videotape and hearing evidence, the court excluded it. Defendant contends the court erred. We disagree. Defendant offered the videotape solely to show the lighting conditions at the time of the shooting. In making its ruling, the court reviewed the evidence on this question. One defense expert witness testified that the minimum amount of light necessary for a video camera to record is 1.8 lux, but that the human eye can see with even less than that amount of light. As the court noted, the witness further testified that the human eye is able to see things in the dark better than a video camera regardless of the lux lighting. Based on evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, the court also noted other differences between the videotape and the actual lighting conditions at the time of the crime. It said that [b]ecause the purpose of the film is to demonstrate to the jury the lighting conditions, I have come to the conclusion that there are too many differences in this case for a proper foundation to meet the test. It found that because of the number of differences and dissimilarities in what took place on June 5, 1997 [the day the videotape was made], I have great fear that the jury is going to be misled. It concluded, Based on the testimony and the perceived differences, as well as the inability of the camera to recreate accurately the ability of the human eye under the same or similar circumstances, that this videotape will mislead the jury, and I am going to find that [the] foundation has not been sufficiently made and order it to be excluded. To be admissible in evidence, an audio or video recording must be authenticated. [Citations.] A video recording is authenticated by testimony or other evidence `that it accurately depicts what it purports to show.' [Citation.] ( People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 747, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) In ruling upon the admissibility of a videotape, a trial court must determine whether: (1) the videotape is a reasonable representation of that which it is alleged to portray; and (2) the use of the videotape would assist the jurors in their determination of the facts of the case or serve to mislead them. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1114, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) Unlike the photograph of the crime scene discussed in part II. A. 3., ante, which reasonably portrayed that for which it was offeredto illustrate where some of the witnesses had said the gunman was standingthe videotape did not portray that for which it was offeredto show the actual lighting conditions at the time of the crime. The trial court reasonably concluded that the lighting conditions portrayed on the film were not sufficiently similar to the lighting conditions on the night of the crime. We find no abuse of discretion. ( People v. Boyd (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 541, 566, 271 Cal.Rptr. 738.) In short, the court acted within its discretion when it excluded a videotape offered to show the lighting conditions at the time of the shooting because it did not accurately show those lighting conditions.