Opinion ID: 1947983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: After the Introduction of the Videotape

Text: After the jury saw the videotape, both Brian Kennedy, the co-owner of the store, and Paula Crawford testified. Defendant testified in his own behalf. The videotape had not been shown to any of those witnesses and neither the prosecutor nor defendant's counsel asked them about the videotape. Moreover, neither the prosecutor nor the defense counsel commented about the videotape in their summations. In its charge, the trial court told the jurors that the videotape was in evidence, and that the court would replay it for them if they wished. During its first full day of deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking to view the videotape. After the jury had screened the video for a second time, the prosecutor asked, Would you like to see it again? It's only a couple of minutes if you'd like. When the jury foreperson asked to caucus for a moment, the court interjected, Only take a couple of minutes. Play it back, do it again. Thus, the jurors viewed the videotape a third time. The Appellate Division rejected defendant's contention that the videotape was inadmissible, holding that [t]he videotape, which was based upon information gathered from witnesses and on-the-scene investigation, was a cumulation of the other demonstrative evidence presented by the State and was admissible as a visual aid to assist the jurors in evaluating the case.