In what circumstances will a videotape be excluded from evidence at a criminal trial?

In People v. Gonzalez (2006) 38 Cal.4th 932, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 237, 135 P.3d 649, we upheld the exclusion of a videotape offered to show the lighting conditions at the time of the crime. We explained that [t]o be admissible in evidence, an audio or video recording must be authenticated. [Citations.] A video recording is authenticated by testimony or other evidence that it accurately depicts what it purports to show. [Citation.] ( People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 747 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485].) In ruling upon the admissibility of a videotape, a trial court must determine whether: (1) the videotape is a reasonable representation of that which it is alleged to portray; and (2) the use of the videotape would assist the jurors in their determination of the facts of the case or serve to mislead them. [121 Cal.Rptr.3d 29] ( People v. Rodrigues [ (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060,] 1114 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1].) ( People v. Gonzalez, at p. 952, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 237, 135 P.3d 649.)