Tag:Admissibility

1
Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2010)
2
People v. Taylor, 922 N.E.2d 1235 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
3
Kohler v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 2010 WL 709182 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2010)
4
State v. Denton, 768 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)
5
King v. State, 908 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
6
State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009)
7
Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1851009 (Va. Ct. App. June 30, 2009)
8
Thompson v. State, 210 P.3d 1233 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009)
9
Richmond v. Coastal Bend Coll. Dist., 2009 WL 1940034 (S.D. Tex. July 2, 2009)
10
People v. Roberts, 2009 WL 3380019 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 22, 2009)

Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2010)

Key Insight: Court held GPS data was properly admitted as a business record where the state presented testimony of an employee for the GPS monitoring company who explained how the monitoring system worked and the testimony of appellant?s probation officer who explained how he accessed the GPS database and printed the exhibits introduced, and where the probation officer had previously tested the accuracy of the GPS system by taking appellant to different locations and checking the accuracy of the monitoring data

Nature of Case: Probation revocation

Electronic Data Involved: GPS monitoring data

People v. Taylor, 922 N.E.2d 1235 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that state failed to properly authenticate silent surveillance video, appellate court agreed and concluded that ?where no witness can testify as to the authentication of the recording as truly and accurately portraying what he or she has seen or heard, the requirements for a silent-witness foundation must be met?

Nature of Case: Theft of property less than $300

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance video

Kohler v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs., Inc., 2010 WL 709182 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2010)

Key Insight: Appellate court upheld ruling that copies of website attached to affidavit attempting to establish contacts sufficient for personal jurisdiction were not authenticated and therefore inadmissible where affiant asserted that the pages were copies of defendant?s website but failed to present evidence showing the website was created by defendant or that the statements in the printouts were made by persons authorized to speak on defendant?s behalf; court noted that ?self-authenticating? provisions in Evidence Code ?operates to establish only that a computer?s print function has worked properly. The presumption does not operate to establish the accuracy of the printed information.?

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death of patient while in nursing facility

Electronic Data Involved: Printed pages from website

State v. Denton, 768 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court erred in admitting computer generated animation allegedly depicting the events that lead to trial where State failed to provide notice of its intent to use the animation, where the animation was created by a non-expert witness who lacked personal knowledge of the events, and where the State failed to lay a foundation for the evidence based on the incorrect assumption that the animation was merely demonstrative; appellate court determined animation was more prejudicial than probative where it did not merely illustrate a witness?s testimony but rather was ?a collage of information? from each of the State?s witnesses presented as fact

Nature of Case: Attempted kidnapping, false imprisonment, attempted armed robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Computer generated animation

King v. State, 908 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from Yahoo! linking defendant to the relevant account and screen name where Yahoo! stated it did not verify the personal information provided by its users and thus ?the source of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation?indicate[d] a lack of trustworthiness? such that admission under the business records exception was error

State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693, 970 A.2d 64 (2009)

Key Insight: Having previously established a standard for the authentication of computer generated evidence in State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781,847 A.2d 921 (2004), court highlighted distinction between ?technologies that may be characterized as merely presenting evidence and those that are more accurately described as creating evidence? and held that unmodified surveillance footage did not constitute computer generated evidence for purposes of Swinton; testimony of camera operator that the footage presented to the court was the same footage he observed when the images were originally captured was sufficient to authenticate the unmodified video; court?s admission of modified video footage was harmless error

Nature of Case: Sale of narcotics

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 2009 WL 1851009 (Va. Ct. App. June 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting reproductions of images found on appellant?s computer at trial where the Commonwealth presented testimony from the forensic scientist and investigator responsible for making the reproductions explaining the process of reproducing the images and confirming that the reproductions accurately represented the images on defendant?s hard drive, and where defendant admitted membership in relevant websites and storing child pornography on his computer; in Virginia, the best evidence rule is limited to writings and was not applicable in this case

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography

Electronic Data Involved: Reproductions of images on defendant’s hard drive

Thompson v. State, 210 P.3d 1233 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009)

Key Insight: Appellate court held audio tapes were properly authenticated and admitted into evidence and that trial court did not abuse its discretion upon finding that ?the State presented ample evidence to support the conclusion that the two recordings accurately depicted the two conversations they purported to reproduce? including testimony from victim?s mother who actually taped the conversations and the State Trooper who provided the equipment and instructions; court declined to adopt nine part traditional test for authentication and noted the ?modern approach,? i.e., ?[whether[ the proponent [of the evidence has] presented sufficient evidence to support a rational finding [that] the tape recording is authentic?

Nature of Case: Second degree sexual abuse of a minor

Electronic Data Involved: Audio tapes

Richmond v. Coastal Bend Coll. Dist., 2009 WL 1940034 (S.D. Tex. July 2, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion for protective order preventing the production of emails in sealed court file where plaintiffs failed to establish an exception to the Public Information Act requiring their disclosure, where plaintiffs failed to establish defendants? waiver of privilege, and where plaintiffs failed to establish the applicability of the crime fraud exception; court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel certain information, including personal emails, and ordered defendants to submit affidavits indicating their lack of personal accounts, if appropriate, and for defendants to produce emails ?of a personal nature to the court under seal? for a determination of relevance

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

People v. Roberts, 2009 WL 3380019 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 22, 2009)

Key Insight: Where, based on chain of custody testimony, the trial court admitted a videotape discovered by defendant?s roommate and given to the police, but where there was no testimony concerning the making of the videotape or where it was kept or who had access to it during the nearly three year period from the time of its making to its discovery, and where the appellate court acknowledged that ?because films are so easily altered, there is a very real danger that deceptive tapes, inadequately authenticated, could contaminate the trial process,? appellate court found admission of the tape was in error and that the error was not harmless and ordered a new trial

Nature of Case: Sex abuse

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.