Illinois Supreme Court: iPhone Recording of Surveillance Video is Not Barred by Best Evidence Rule (People v. Smith)


Carl Smith Jr. was convicted of residential burglary and sentenced to 6 ½ years’

imprisonment. The conviction arises from the crime victim arriving home to find a door that

did not open properly, and who subsequently found dozens of missing hydrocodone pills,

removed jewelry, and that an apartment window had been broken.

At the trial court, Mr. Smith moved to exclude iPhone video evidence which re-recorded

surveillance video. Mr. Smith argued the videos were not admissible pursuant to the Illinois

Rule of Evidence 1003 and 1004, or alternatively that they are barred by the common law

best evidence rule. In short, Mr. Smith contended that the duplicate video did not meet the

requirements to overcome the preference that the original be admitted. After hearings on

the topic, the Jackson County judge denied the motion to bar admission. Mr. Smith was

convicted after a jury trial. On appeal, the Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed that the

iPhone video footage of the video surveillance system was properly admitted into evidence.

The first question in front of the Illinois Supreme Court was whether the video clips of

surveillance footage re-recorded on an iPhone are admissible pursuant to Illinois Rule of

Evidence 1003 or 1004, or barred by the best evidence rule. The second question the Court

answers is whether Mr. Smith forfeited arguing that the video clips lacked sufficient

foundation to be admissible at trial. The questions about admissibility are reviewed de novo

and the trial court’s decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

In the Supreme Court, Mr. Smith argued the iPhone video clips are inadmissible, as they

are not the originals of the evidence. The Court broke down the rule through multiple layers.

First, it defined the terms “writing and recordings” to include “photographing,” which also

includes “video tapes.” Therefore, the Court reasoned that the clips were considered

“writings and recordings,” as defined in Illinois Rule of Evidence 1001, which is in turn

applicable to the other rules. Further, the Court reasons the iPhone video is a duplicate due

to the “electronic re-recording.” With these definitions, the Rules 1003 and 1004 analysis

then come into consideration. A duplicate is generally admissible to the same extent as the

original, unless there is a “genuine question about the original’s authenticity, or if there are

other reasons that make it unfair to admit the duplicate rather than the original. Rule 1004

also allows the duplicate to be admissible if the originals are lost or destroyed, unless the

originals were destroyed in bad faith.

The Illinois Supreme Court cites the plain language of the rules and specific circumstances

in the case at bar, to determine that the iPhone video clips are considered duplicates as

defined by Illinois Rule of Evidence 1001(4). With that definition, it is then, the Court holds, admissible under Rule 1003.

The Illinois Supreme Court declined to require that the duplicate provide the entirety of the original recording. The Court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that not showing the entire video was unfair, reasoning that there is no no-speculative reason to state that the full recording would have contained relevant evidence. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that video clips recorded on an iPhone, of a video

surveillance recording, is admissible evidence. As to the second question, Mr. Smith

abandoned the foundation argument by not raising it on appeal.

Author: Jake A. Leahy

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Michigan Tribunal Rules Wayfair Does Not Create Nexus for Local Tax Based on Resident Agent

 The 2018 Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair  overturned the 1992 decision  Quill Corp. v. North Dakota , which was a decision that strictly prohibited states from imposing sales taxes on vendors through mail order or internet businesses unless the vendor had a "physical presence" in the state. That decision, which came in the early days of the internet, represented a strikingly different world of internet sales. For example, Amazon was still two years away from its launch and Jeff Bezos had yet to even sell a book online.  The Michigan Tax Tribunal recently issued a decision in Apex Laboratories International, Inc. v. City of Detroit . This matter was brought forward after years of continued litigation, as the case was remanded to the Tribunal from the Court of Appeals over the question of whether the the Supreme Court's Wayfair decision changed the ruling as to whether Apex  could be found liable for local taxes instituted by the City of Detroit...
Read more

Trade secrets and unfair competition complaint - Gallagher v. Alliant Insurance

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. In the Northern District of Illinois.   The 43 page Complaint alleged several different causes of actions including: I. Tortuous interference with a contract; II. Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage;  III. Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and  IV. Conspiracy.  While each element requires a fact-intensive analysis, there are several themes and considerations to consider as they play out. First, the crux of the dispute arises as Alliant allegedly has repeatedly recruited employees from Gallagher.  Per the Complaint, as they are recruited, they are asked to retain certain types of confidential information. In doing so, this places Gallagher in a precarious situation and requires that the employees not fulfill their duty of loyalty to Gallagher during the course of their employment.  While several fact patters stand out, an ...
Read more

New Treas. Reg. Provides New Guidance on IRS and State Investigations of Non-Profit Tax Status

Today, the Internal Revenue Service officially published a new Treasury Regulation entitled "Disclosure of Information to State Officials Regarding Tax-Exempt Organizations." Prior to enactment, the IRS was often unable to communicate with a state Attorney General regarding an ongoing investigation pertaining to the status of a non-profit organization. At times, this often amounted to both organizations investigating substantially similar issues, however, the IRS was unable to disclose the status of an ongoing investigation unless it had been finalized.   While the IRS was able to share some information with certain state officers, the IRS is now directed to inform a so-called "appropriate State officer" ("ASO") of (1.) a refusal to recognize an entity as a charitable organization; (2.) a charitable organization which no longer meets the guidelines to be tax-exempt; and (3.) mailing a notice of deficiency for any tax imposed under IRS Section 507 or Chapte...
Read more