Opinion ID: 7089211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony about Content of Video

Text: {¶ 220} Tench repeatedly claimed that he had searched for his mother during the morning of November 12 by driving the route she would have taken to get home from her workplace. At trial, Detective Schmitt testified that he checked this claim by reviewing traffic-camera video taken at the intersection of State Route 303 and I-71 from 11:00 p.m., November 11, to 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., November 12, 2013. Schmitt did not see Tench's Ford F-150 at that intersection in the video footage he reviewed. The video itself was not introduced or played at trial (presumably due to its length). Tench did not object at trial to Schmitt's testimony. {¶ 221} In his seventh proposition of law, Tench contends that Schmitt's testimony about the video was inadmissible for three reasons. First, he contends that Schmitt's testimony was improper lay-opinion testimony, violating Evid.R. 701, which permits lay opinions that are rationally based on the perception of the witness and    helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. He contends that only an expert [could] make a determination of the accuracy of the video. This claim fails because Schmitt did not offer any opinion regarding the video; he testified merely to what he saw when he viewed it. {¶ 222} Second, Tench contends that Schmitt should not have been permitted to testify regarding the content of the video, because the video itself was not authenticated pursuant to Evid.R. 901(A). Tench has not raised an argument under Evid.R. 1002, which governs the admissibility of evidence offered to prove the content of a recording. {¶ 223} Evid.R. 901(A) states: The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. See generally Midland Steel Prods. Co. v. Internatl. Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. , 61 Ohio St.3d 121 , 130, 573 N.E.2d 98 (1991) (discussing methods of authenticating video recordings); State v. Pickens , 141 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2014-Ohio-5445 , 25 N.E.3d 1023 , ¶ 150-151. {¶ 224} The video was neither introduced into evidence nor authenticated, and no foundation was laid for the admissibility of Schmitt's testimony. But even if it was error for the detective to testify as to the content of an unauthenticated video, it did not constitute plain error. As detailed above in our discussion of  Tench's fifth proposition, there was overwhelming evidence of guilt; thus, the testimony about the traffic-camera video does not undermine confidence in the jury's finding of guilt. {¶ 225} Finally, Tench contends that the video was never provided to or reviewed by defense counsel and that defense counsel was unable to adequately cross examine the witness[ ] without viewing the video or having it analyzed by an expert. He contends that [i]t was error  for defense counsel not to object to that testimony let alone failing to demand the video for analysis. {¶ 226} This appears to be a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel-although Tench does not cite or discuss the standard governing ineffective-assistance claims-and also a claim that discovery was improperly withheld. Neither claim is factually supported: Tench cites nothing in the record to show that defense counsel was not provided with the video. {¶ 227} We overrule Tench's seventh proposition of law.