What is the standard for the exclusion of surveillance video evidence in a criminal case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Washington, B263078 (Cal. App. 2016):
Washington argues the trial court should have excluded the surveillance video because the prosecution failed to authenticate the evidence. We review the court's determination of authenticity for abuse of discretion. (See People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 266 (Goldsmith) [trial court's determination that the prosecution "provide[d] the foundational testimony necessary to authenticate [evidence]" is reviewed for abuse of discretion].) Under this standard, "we will not disturb the trial court's ruling 'except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
"To be admissible in evidence, an audio or video recording must be authenticated. [Citations.]" (People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 747, disapproved on another
Page 7
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
