It seems that video cameras are everywhere, these days: at the bank, at every youth soccer game, in jails and prisons, at Wal-Mart. One often-cited (but apparently questionable) statistic suggests that Londoners are caught on camera 300 times per day. Americans, too, are videotaped frequently. Some of the cameras belong to police departments, who often use federal homeland security money to purchase them, while others belong to businesses and individuals. And some events are required by law to be videotaped. For example, G.S. 15A-284.52(b)(14) requires that live lineups be recorded. Likewise, G.S. 15A-211 requires that custodial interrogations in homicide cases be recorded (though it allows audio or video recording). Whatever your views about the prevalence of video cameras or the law's recording requirements, one thing is clear: the number of cases in which recordings are important evidence will continue to increase. I may post later about the foundation that must be established in order for such evidence to be admissible, but today, because the Court of Appeals recently decided State v. Miller, a case on point, I'm going to write about the hearsay issues that arise when recordings are introduced. Let's start with an easy example: Ollie Officer suspects Dan Defendant of murder. Ollie asks Dan to come in for an interview, and Dan agrees. Ollie records the conversation. Dan makes incriminating remarks, and at his subsequent trial, the state seeks to introduce the recording. Dan objects, acknowledging that his statements fall within Rule 801(d)'s exception for statements by a party [...]
Faculty Coordinators
