Opinion ID: 1219174
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of the Video Tape As Impeachment Evidence

Text: The plaintiffs contend that the video tape was not admissible as impeachment evidence because the predicate foundation had not been adequately laid. They suggest a fair review of the whole record does not reveal that Mrs. McDougal at any time indicated she was incapable of doing the acts depicted on the video tape. Without this foundation, the plaintiffs argue there is nothing to impeach. This argument is without merit. Unfortunately, the parties and the trial court mistakenly considered the video tape as a prior inconsistent statement and limited their discussion to only those rules and principles governing prior statements. The video tape is not a statement within the contemplation of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, [6] and the jurisprudential rules we have formulated regarding prior statements are not necessarily applicable to this situation. [7] The method of impeachment here is more closely akin to contradiction or rebuttal. To be specific, what the defendant sought to do was contradict or rebut the testimony of Mrs. McDougal with extrinsic evidence of a video tape reflecting her conduct. Unlike Rules 608(b) and 613 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, there is no specific rule governing the admissibility of contradictions. We specifically stated in State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 178, 451 S.E.2d 731, 744 (1994): When specific authority to resolve an evidentiary issue under the Rules is absent, admissibility must be determined by reference to the general provisions governing the admission of relevant evidence. Of course, the rules referred to are Rules 401 through 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. As suggested above, we need only determine whether the video tape was relevant; we find it was. Rule 401 provides: `Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Under Rule 401, evidence having any probative value whatsoever can satisfy the relevancy definition. Obviously, this is a liberal standard favoring a broad policy of admissibility. For example, the offered evidence does not have to make the existence of a fact to be proved more probable than not or provide a sufficient basis for sending the issue to the jury. The video tape was admitted on the issue of damages. There can be no doubt that a video tape showing Mrs. McDougal performing her daily, ordinary chores is probative of the extent of her injuries. The video tape became particularly relevant in light of the testimony of Mrs. McDougal that she was unable to carry on her daily functions as a result of her injuries. Our prior cases have permitted the attacking party to admit evidence that, if credited by the jury, would raise doubts about a prior witness's testimony. Under common law, counterproof offered to contradict a witness was clearly admissible unless the proponent of the witness could show that the counterproof should be excluded because of unfairness or to prevent excursions into collateral matters. [8] Subject to such limits, it is worth noting that impeachment by contradiction may properly attack all kinds of testimony, whether given on direct or on cross, and indeed all evidence, as well as inferences suggested by evidence or arguments of counsel interpreting the evidence. Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Evidence § 6.58 at 662-1 (1994). Accordingly, we find the video tape was relevant to the issue of damages and, barring any other procedural or evidentiary defect, was admissible to contradict and impeach Mrs. McDougal's testimony. We further find the only threshold foundation necessary to admit this form of evidence is relevancy and authenticity. There is no objection on the ground of authenticity preserved in the record. The balance of prejudice versus probative value required by Rule 403 is reviewed for a clear showing of abuse of discretion. See State v. Derr, supra, 451 S.E.2d at 744. We find no abuse of discretion under these facts. B.