Opinion ID: 1276909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: motion pictures as evidence

Text: Photographs, audio and video recordings, and motion pictures are demonstrative evidence, defined as evidence addressed directly to the senses without intervention of testimony. [13] Like other evidence, demonstrative evidence can be classified as either direct or circumstantial. It also may be classified as real evidence if it plays a direct part in an incident leading to trial or illustrative evidence if offered to make other evidence more comprehensible to the trier of fact. [14] However classified, the admissibility of a photograph, audio and video recording, and motion picture lies within the discretion of the trial court, [15] which may consider its length, relevance, and prejudicial effect. Photographs, audio and video recordings, and motion pictures are treated as real evidence when they capture events or statements related immediately to an event. [16] In Gates v. State, [17] we held admissible a video recording in which the defendant confessed to the crime, distinguishing his pictorial confession from the posed reenactment of the crimes. [18] Similarly, a video recording of a crime may be admissible under OCGA § 24-4-48 or when a camera operator or eyewitness testifies that the tape recording accurately portrays what the witness saw take place. [19] Finally, we have found no error in the admission of four adult movies and a witness's description of one movie in a murder case involving rape and aggravated child molestation when the movies were not shown to the jury. [20] Photographs, audio and video recordings, and motion pictures are illustrative evidence when prepared for litigation to aid the trier of fact in understanding the issues and facts at trial. [21] In Eiland v. State, [22] an early case dealing with the admissibility of a posed movie reenacting a crime, the Georgia Court of Appeals rejected the film as evidence because it differed from reality in substantial ways and became an extra witness for the state. The court explained: photographs and especially movies which are posed, which are substantially different from the facts of the case, and which because of the differences might well be prejudicial and misleading to the jury, should not be used, and this is especially true where the situation or event sought to be depicted is simple, the testimony adequate, and the picture adds nothing except the visual image to the mental image already produced. [23] That court concluded that there was no purpose to the film except to make more vivid the state's argument that the defendant was fleeing arrest because he knew a companion had drugs. Relying on the Eiland decision, we recently reversed a trial court's approval in a death penalty case of the state's use of a video recording that reenacted the defendant's murder of a deputy sheriff. In Pickren v. State, [24] we outlined the criteria for considering when the reenactment of a crime may be admitted as demonstrative evidence, whether admitted into evidence or used for illustration only. The party who seeks to use the video reenactment must show that (1) it is a fair and accurate representation of the event in question; (2) the reenactment was filmed under conditions substantially similar to those existing at the time of the event; and (3) the recording's visual image adds something to the mental image already produced by oral testimony, due either to the event's complexity or the inadequacy of the testimony. [25] This decision is consistent with earlier cases from both appellate courts in this state. [26]