Court Opinion

ID: 9850713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:01:52.742051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.217657
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s holding in Division 5 that the admission of the two videotapes, State’s Exhibits 1 and 2, was error. I thus dissent to the reversal of appellant’s convictions for aggravated child molestation and sexual exploitation of a child.
At issue are State’s Exhibits 1 and 2, which both depict the same middle-aged man and adolescent female engaging in various sex acts at two separate times in two different rooms in appellant’s house (bedroom in Exhibit 1 and living room in Exhibit 2). The two people are readily identifiable throughout both tapes. Testimony established that the man was appellant; the victim testified that she was the female depicted with appellant on the videotapes shown to her by the district attorney.10 The victim did not testify that the tapes accurately *285depicted what occurred between her and appellant; she was not asked to review the accuracy of the tapes due to a misdirected maternalism by the DA’s office seeking to spare the victim from further embarrassment. The evidence also established that the tapes, seized from appellant’s home by police pursuant to a warrant, were found in a manila envelope kept in a closet in a locked safe, which was unlocked by appellant upon request by police. Testimony from State witnesses painstakingly established that from the time the tapes were seized to the time they were played for the jury, there had been no alteration, modification or change of any nature or form to the tapes. The officer who seized the tapes testified that based on his viewing of the tapes shortly after their seizure (a few days’ delay occurred while equipment was located to play the tapes) and his subsequent viewing of the tapes during a court recess prior to their being shown to the jury, the contents of the tapes had not been altered or deleted.
I would distinguish all the criminal cases on which the majority relies because they all involved the admissibility of videotapes not made by the defendant. The tapes were made by security cameras, e.g., Harper v. State, 213 Ga. App. 444 (4) (445 SE2d 303) (1994), or by law enforcement authorities, e.g., Allen v. State, 146 Ga. App. 815 (2) (247 SE2d 540) (1978) (federal sting operation); State v. Berky, 214 Ga. App. 174 (447 SE2d 147) (1994) (DUI video taken by officer), or by individuals operating in cooperation with the police. E.g., Freeman v. State, 216 Ga. App. 319 (1) (454 SE2d 196) (1995) (local t.v. station accompanying police officer).11 I cannot agree with the majority that the State must establish that tapes promulgated by a defendant and seized from the defendant’s exclusive possession accurately depict scenes filmed by the defendant, when the State is able to establish conclusively that the videotapes were not altered or modified while in the State’s possession. Because there is ample support for the conclusion that State’s Exhibits 1 and 2 constituted probative and authentic evidence, I cannot agree that the trial court abused its discretion or committed any reversible error by admitting these exhibits. I concur fully in Divisions 1, 2, 3 (a), 4, and 6-11.
*286Decided July 16, 1997 —
Reconsideration denied July 30, 1997.
Thompson, Fox, Chandler, Homans & Hicks, Joseph A. Homans, for appellant.
Lydia J. Sartain, District Attorney, Lucy K. Henry, Jennifer C. Bagwell, Assistant District Attorneys, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

 I find that the trial court was authorized to conclude that the videotapes viewed by the victim were the videos adduced by the State as its Exhibits 1 and 2. Because admissibility of evidence is an issue for the court not the jury, Brock v. State, 206 Ga. 397, 400 (57 SE2d 279) (1950), I find no flaw in the State’s failure to elicit testimony from the victim *285before the jury that the videos discussed in her testimony were the same as Exhibits 1 and 2.

 My review of other Georgia criminal cases dealing with the admissibility of videotapes reveals that all fall into one of these categories. For the admissibility of security videotapes see Daniels v. State, 222 Ga. App. 29 (5) (473 SE2d 239) (1996); see also Milford v. State, 178 Ga. App. 792 (1) (344 SE2d 505) (1986). For the admissibility of law enforcement videotapes see Fields v. State, 223 Ga. App. 569 (3) (479 SE2d 393) (1996); Dunn v. State, 218 Ga. App. 329 (461 SE2d 294) (1995); Bedley v. State, 189 Ga. App. 90 (3) (374 SE2d 841) (1988).