Surveillance camera footage of crime scenes often helps law enforcement officers identify an unknown perpetrator. This kind of footage can be equally powerful at trial, convincing jurors that the person depicted in the video is the defendant in the courtroom. There are foundational requirements that the State must satisfy for the display or admission of such evidence, and the state’s appellate courts have reviewed them in a handful of recent cases. State v. Snead. Jeff wrote here about the supreme court’s opinion in State v. Snead, __ N.C. ___, 783 S.E.2d 733 (2016). That case involved the theft of name-brand shirts from a Belk department store. Video footage of the theft was introduced at trial. The state supreme court determined that testimony from the store’s regional loss prevention manager that the recording system was industry standard, was in working order, and the recording shown to the jury was the same one he reviewed was sufficient to authenticate the video. State v. Fleming. State v. Fleming, __ N.C. App. __, 786 S.E.2d 760 (2016) involved the theft of purses from a Marshalls store in Charlotte. The State’s evidence at trial showed that the defendant Fleming went into the Marshalls, walked through the handbag section, and then left the store. His accomplice then came into the store, took handful of name-brand handbags and headed for the exit. A store manager stopped the man at the exit. He pushed her out of the way, left the store, and got into a car that was driven by [...]
Faculty Coordinators
