Donati v. Com.
| Decision Date | 05 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2127-00-4.,2127-00-4. |
| Citation | 560 S.E.2d 455,37 Va. App. 575 |
| Parties | Michael Eugene DONATI v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
James G. Connell, III, Richmond (Devine & Connell, P.L.C., on briefs), for appellant.
Leah A. Darron, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BENTON, ANNUNZIATA, JJ., and COLEMAN, Senior Judge.
Michael Eugene Donati appeals his jury trial conviction for perjury. He contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike the evidence as insufficient to prove perjury in violation of Code § 18.2-434. He argues the Commonwealth failed to prove falsity by two witnesses, or one witness supported by significant corroborating evidence, as required by case law, citing Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. (27 Gratt.) 1025, 1876 WL 6402 (1876). For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm" his conviction.
On November 18, 1999, during a hearing in the Fairfax Circuit Court to revoke Donati's probation, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence a videotape purporting to show Donati exposing himself and mastur bating in a public building in Bethesda, Maryland. Security cameras in the building had recorded Donati's activities on videotape. The videotapes were introduced to prove that Donati had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by exposing himself in public in violation of the conditions that he be of good behavior and not violate the law. At the revocation hearing, Donati admitted he was the man depicted on the videotape but denied that the acts shown on the video were of him exposing himself or masturbating. As a result of those denials by Donati at the revocation hearing while under oath, the Commonwealth charged Donati with perjury.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Grimsteacl, 12 Va.App. 1066, 1067, 407 S.E.2d 47, 48 (1991), it proved that on June 22, 1999, Detective Herbert C. Kahala observed Donati enter a business building at 4815 Rugby Avenue in Bethesda, Maryland, wearing a white tank top, gym shorts, and white tennis shoes. Donati remained in the building for fifteen to twenty minutes. Surveillance tapes from the security system in the building depicted Donati in a hallway with his penis exposed in a visibly aroused state, masturbating. The Commonwealth also introduced still photographs of Donati produced from the videotape.
We find that the rule enunciated in Schwartz and its progeny is inapplicable in light of the facts of the case before us. This case does not involve the weighing of competing oaths and is not supported by the testimony of only one witness, circumstances which the Schwartz rule addresses. Instead, Donati's denials under oath that he exposed himself and masturbated in public, acts which constituted the basis of the perjury charge, were contradicted by the video recording of his actions. Thus, the jury weighed Donati's oath against competent, authenticated, real evidence, consisting of a videotape and photographs of the acts in which Donati denied being engaged. As such, the concerns of oath against oath or one witness testifying contrary to the defendant, which were raised in Schwartz, are not at issue here.1
"The credibility of the witnesses and the weight accorded the evidence are matters solely for the fact finder who has the opportunity to see and hear that evidence as it is presented." Sandoval v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 133, 138, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995). The jury accepted the account of what was depicted on the videotape and found that Donati falsely testified at the revocation hearing when he denied that he exposed himself and masturbated.
To support Donati's conviction, "[a]ll that was required to be proven was that appellant, being duly under oath, willfully swore falsely to material facts." Sheard v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 227, 233, 403 S.E.2d 178, 181 (1991). The Commonwealth introduced a properly authenticated videotape depicting Donati exposing his penis and masturbating. The Commonwealth also presented evidence that, under oath, Donati claimed he did not engage in that activity. "Videotapes, like photographs, when properly authenticated, may be admitted ... `as "mute," "silent," or "dumb" independent photographic witnesses.'" Brooks v. Commonwealth, 15 Va.App. 407, 410, 424 S.E.2d 566, 569 (1992) (citation omitted).
[E]ven though no human is capable of swearing that he personally perceived what a photograph [or videotape] purports to portray . . . there may nevertheless be good warrant for receiving [it] in evidence. Given an adequate foundation assuring the accuracy of the process producing it, the photograph [or videotape] should then be received as a so-called silent witness or as a witness which "speaks for itself."
Id. (citations omitted). In this case, the videotape speaks for itself and proved that Donati testified falsely under oath. The evidence is sufficient, as a matter of law, to support Donati's conviction for perjury.
Affirmed.
The majority apparently believes that as a policy matter a video recording is to be deemed more credible, as a matter of law, than the testimony of the most reliable and credible human witness. Consequently, it has found inapplicable the long standing rule in Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. (27 Gratt.) 1025 (1876), requiring corroborating evidence to prove perjury. "If [Schwartz] is to be overruled, ... it must be expressly overruled by the Supreme Court." Bostic v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 632, 636, 525 S.E.2d 67, 68 (2000). Because we are "constrained by our previous decisions and those of the Supreme Court," id. at 635, 525 S.E.2d at 68, I would apply the Schwartz rule, which is clearly stated and is contrary to the majority's holding. Therefore, I dissent.
"The common law crime of perjury is codified at Code § 18.2-434." Williams v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 336, 339, 381 S.E.2d 361, 364 (1989). For over a century, the Supreme Court of Virginia has recognized the following principle applicable to that crime:
No rule is perhaps better settled than that to authorize a conviction of perjury there must be two witnesses testifying to the falsity of the statement, or one witness with strong corroborating circumstances of such a character as clearly to turn the scale and overcome the oath of the party and the legal presumption of his innocence. This rule is founded upon the idea that it is unsafe to convict in any case where the oath of one man merely is to be weighed against that of another.... [T]he confirmatory evidence however must be of a strong character, and not merely corroborative in slight particulars.
Schwartz, 68 Va. (27 Gratt.) at 1027. Elaborating further, the Court explained that "[w]hen we speak of corroborative evidence, we ... mean ... evidence aliunde, evidence which tends to show the perjury independently." Id. at 1032. Indeed, we recently applied the rule and reiterated its unambiguous command as follows:
We hold that the law as stated in Schwartz remains in effect and a perjury conviction under Code § 18.2-434 requires proof of falsity from the testimony of at least two witnesses or other corroborating evidence of falsity in the event the case is supported by the testimony of only one witness.
Keffer v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 545, 549, 404 S.E.2d 745, 747 (1991) (emphasis added).
The Commonwealth sought to prove that Michael Donati committed perjury when he denied masturbating inside a building. In its case-in-chief, the Commonwealth offered as evidence a video, which depicted Donati inside the building. The photographs, which the majority identifies as part of the "real evidence," were derived from the video recording and, thus, constitute the same evidence as the video, The photographs were not independently generated by a still camera that captured Donati's images. "Videotapes, like photographs, when properly authenticated, may be admitted under either of two theories: `(1) to illustrate the testimony of a witness, and (2) as "mute," "silent," or "dumb" independent photographic witnesses.' " Brooks v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 407, 410, 424 S.E.2d 566, 569 (1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adjei v. Commonwealth
...not involve the weighing of competing oaths and is not supported by the testimony of only one witness.” Donati v. Commonwealth, 37 Va.App. 575, 578, 560 S.E.2d 455, 456 (2002) (holding that no evidence was required to corroborate the video recording that contradicted the defendant's oath).8......
-
Gail v. Commonwealth
...(Benton, J., dissenting). "[R]ecording[s] . . . provide[] depictions of physical facts that present[] a . . . question [for the fact finder]." Id. Here, not only did the have the opportunity to hear Daniels's final words identifying Gail, Barbee also testified that he told her Gail was the ......
-
Anderson v. Commonwealth
...Id. at 401, 778 S.E.2d at 516 (quoting Keffer, 12 Va. App. at 547, 404 S.E.2d at 746); see also Donati v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 575, 578-79, 560 S.E.2d 455, 456-57 (2002) (holding that no evidence is required to corroborate "competent, authenticated, real evidence," such as a video reco......
-
Saunders v. Commonwealth
...was sufficient to satisfy the corroboration requirement under Schwartz.2 Id. Nevertheless, appellant relies on Donati v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 575, 560 S.E.2d 455 (2002), for the proposition that only "competent, authenticated, real evidence" such as a photograph or videotape is suffici......