Marvin Holmes v. United States, No.
13-CF-307 (decided June 5, 2014)
Players: Associate
Judge Thompson, Associate Judge McLeese, Senior Judge King. Opinion by Judge King. Edward E. Schwab for appellant. Trial judge: Juliet J. McKenna.
Facts: Holmes
was charged with stealing two shirts from Saks Fifth Avenue. (The shirts were valued by the store at $275
each!). The store detective watched Holmes using the
store’s surveillance cameras. Holmes put
the shirt in a bag and walked out of the store without paying. The detective testified about what he saw on
the video feed from the surveillance cameras and the recorded footage was shown
at the trial. In a shocking twist,
Holmes was convicted of shoplifting.
Issue: Is a
witness’s testimony about what he viewed on a surveillance video feed hearsay?
Holding: A
camera is not a person. The video image
provided by a surveillance camera is not a statement. The store detective’s testimony about what he
saw on the surveillance camera video was not inadmissible hearsay.
Of note:
·
The recorded video from the surveillance camera
was admitted into evidence. If it had
not been admitted, the defense could have made a good “best evidence rule”
objection. See, e.g., Williams v. United States, 686 A.2d 552
(D.C. 1996) (“The elementary wisdom of the best
evidence rule rests on the fact that the document is a more reliable, complete
and accurate source of information as to its contents and meaning than anyone’s
description[.]”).
·
The Court noted "that if a
witness testified about the content of an out-of-court statement, and that
statement is offered in support of its truth, then the testimony is hearsay,
whether or not the witness observed the other person live or on camera.”
·
For hearsay purposes a statement is “either an
oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion.” JA
No comments:
Post a Comment