Opinion ID: 6108206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Ruling Without First Watching the Video

Text: The Texas Rules of Evidence provide for the general admissibility of all evidence having any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. 8 Even if relevant, however, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of ... unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. 9 Trial courts play a vital role in evaluating evidence. Being present in the courtroom and having the most familiarity with the case, the trial court is best positioned to assess whether evidence is unfair or potentially misleading. 10 When a  Rule 403 objection is at issue, the trial court must balance probative value against the relevant countervailing factors to determine admissibility. 11 The trial court has extensive discretion in evidentiary rulings, and we will uphold decisions within the zone of reasonable disagreement. 12 The trial court's discretion, however, is not without limits. We afford no deference when the record affirmatively establishes the court could not have properly exercised its discretion. Here, the trial court excluded the surveillance video despite never having viewed it. Under these facts, that amounted to an abuse of discretion. Williams asserts the judge's limine-hearing statement that she had not watched the video does not preclude a determination that she did so later and, consistent with the presumption of regularity of proceedings, 13 we should presume she watched it at some point before ruling at trial. We reject this argument. The presumption of regularity applies only when the record is silent or ambiguous and, even then, only to reasonable presumptions. 14 The record here is neither silent nor ambiguous. During the limine conference, the judge said she did not watch the video and would revisit the matter only if Williams opened the door to impeachment; at trial, she repeatedly ruled that he had not. Under these circumstances, we cannot reasonably presume the trial court viewed the surveillance video on her own, without informing the parties, when the condition she set for viewing it never occurred. Our sister criminal court has emphasized the importance of viewing videos before ruling on admissibility, noting it is difficult for a trial judge to weigh the probative value [of a video] against the potentially unfair prejudice ... without first reviewing it. 15 Appellate courts around the country have similarly admonished trial courts that the proper exercise of discretion requires viewing visual evidence, particularly when balancing under Rule 403. 16  We addressed an analogous situation involving disclosure of trade-secret information in In re M-I L.L.C. 17 To avoid disclosing sensitive information to the defendant's corporate representative, the plaintiff sought to conduct a portion of a temporary-injunction hearing outside his presence. 18 Without learning anything about the information to be protected, the trial court denied the plaintiff's request, apparently believing the defendant had an absolute due-process right to have its representative present. 19 The plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals and submitted an affidavit in camera discussing the trade-secret information. 20 After the appeals court denied the mandamus petition, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to produce the affidavit to the defendant without ever examining it in camera. 21 We subsequently granted mandamus relief, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the affidavit produced without first reviewing its contents and in failing to conduct the required due-process balancing before refusing to exclude the defendant's representative. 22 Without knowing what [the] alleged trade secrets were, the trial court simply could not have conducted the required balancing. 23 We hold that, as a general rule, a trial court should view video evidence before ruling on admissibility when the contents of the video are at issue. We recognize circumstances might arise where viewing is unnecessary or extremely onerous. For example, [t]here may be cases where the probative value of the evidence is so minimal that it will be obvious to the court that the potential prejudice ... substantially outweighs any probative value the evidence might have. 24 Additionally, video depositions need not be viewed before ruling on objections unless the objection is specific to a visual aspect of the deposition. Exigencies of trial, moreover, could make it difficult to find time to view  a late-offered video, especially if the video is lengthy. The parties could potentially address such timing issues by submitting representative excerpts for the trial court's review. In any event, trial courts should undertake their best efforts in attempting to view the subject visual recording prior to ruling on its admissibility. 25 Exceptions should be few and far between. This case does not justify an exception. Proper exercise of discretion here required the trial judge to watch the video. Diamond sought to give the jury a visual representation of Williams performing activities he said caused him pain. The probative value of the evidence derives directly from Williams's appearance as he performed the surveilled tasks. Fully assessing the probative value of this visual was impossible based solely on the parties' descriptions. Though everyone agreed it was Williams who appeared on the video performing certain physical activities, 26 each side offered its own spin. Williams argued he tried to perform these activities for limited periods and experienced pain, whereas Diamond described Williams as moving with evident ease and fluidity of motion while operating power tools and machinery, bending, reaching, and throwing. The trial judge should have assessed the video for herself rather than relying on counsel's descriptions and arguments. 27 Further, only by viewing the video could the trial court determine whether the jury might misinterpret some of the segments as being continuous despite the prominent time stamp, or whether seeing Williams bend and gather debris more than thirty times in the span of a few minutes had the same impact as testimony that he could pick up small things on occasion. The video was relatively short-about an hour-and could possibly have been edited by agreement. Nothing in the record reveals any exigency that would have made viewing the video difficult. We hold the trial court here could not properly exercise its discretion without watching the video.