What is the test for admissible video evidence in a medical malpractice case?

captured on the dispensary's surveillance cameras. The issue, however, is forfeited. "A tentative pretrial evidentiary ruling, made without fully knowing what the trial evidence would show, will not preserve the issue for appeal if the appellant could have, but did not, renew the objection or offer of proof and press for a final ruling in the changed context of the trial evidence itself." (People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 133.) Here, the trial court's ruling, that the recording was admissible, was expressly made subject to objection on foundational grounds at trial. The defense did not object either when the video was played for the jury or when it was offered into evidence. Accordingly, the issue was not preserved for appeal.

Moreover, even if defendant had objected at trial on the ground he raises on appeal, we would not find that the trial court abused its discretion in ruling the video admissible.⁴ A video or photograph is typically authenticated by showing that it is a fair and accurate representation of what it purports to depict. (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1303.) Authentication may be established by the testimony of anyone who knows that the picture or video correctly depicts what it purports to represent. (Ibid.) There is a rebuttable presumption that "'[a] printed representation of images stored on a video or digital medium is presumed to be an accurate representation of the images it purports to represent.' The presumption affects the burden of proof and is rebutted by a showing that the 'printed representation of images stored on [the] video or digital medium is inaccurate or unreliable.' ([Evid. Code, 1553, subd. (a)].) The burden then

Page 7