Court Opinion

ID: 9522004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:16:43.716674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:12.084952
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
State's Exhibit No. 9 was a video tape recording of the crime scene, taken immediately after commission by police and narrated on the tape by Officer Trennerry. Lee objected to its admission, objected during the playing of the tape, and moved to strike the tape after it was played. All objections and the motion were denied.
Such exhibits create two distinct eviden-tiary problems. The video camera is under the control of the cameraman who is selecting the places to be filmed and the sequence of their filming. A foundation requirement for admission of such an exhibit should require a showing that the film as a whole is a fair and reasonable representation of that which it purports to represent, namely, the area in which the crime occurred. This is the requirement that it be shown authentic and correct. Lamar v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 504, 282 N.E.2d 795. The second problem is that the narrative may include improper opinion or statement of fact. A foundation requirement for admission should require that the exhibit not contain matter otherwise not admissible into evidence. The narrative portion of the tape is after all simply an unsworn statement of a party to a lawsuit being generated for trial purposes, and ordinarily usable therefore at trial for the sole purpose of refreshing recollection. The proponent of such an exhibit should have the burden of showing that the exhibit contains only relevant and admissible statements. This is also a Lomar requirement. I agree with appellant that narrated tapes of this sort carry a great risk of distortion and immutable and subtle prejudice.
On this exhibit, the narrating officer made the following statements:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, blood in pool form"
"..double murder.."
"..you will notice that the table has been broken, obviously by some sort of struggle."
"On the telephone itself, you will notice high velocity impact blood stain evidence."
The basic position of the State is that the objections of defense counsel did not come before or even contemporaneously with admission of the allegedly objectionable parts. In this position the State is correct. However, I would modify the law applicable to this type exhibit in either of two ways: the narrative parts should be declared totally inadmissible, or the narrated tape because not in question and answer form should be admissible only after viewing by the trial court while the counsel opposing admission has an opportunity to object for the record.