People v. Fondal
| Decision Date | 10 October 1989 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Robert FONDAL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Matthew Muraskin, Hempstead (Kent V. Moston and Neil Hutchins, of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and Kenneth L. Fitzgerald, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, KUNZEMAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered December 15, 1986, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the jury should be permitted to view a videotape which purported to show the defendant and his accomplice in the act of shoplifting two suits from the Sears store located at the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream. One of the two Sears' employees who watched the defendant and his accomplice through the medium of a closed-circuit television as they were engaged in the commission of the theft testified that the videotape which was received in evidence accurately depicted the events which he had observed. Under these circumstances, there was an adequate foundation for the introduction of the videotape into evidence (see generally, Caprara v. Chrysler Corp., 71 A.D.2d 515, 529, 423 N.Y.S.2d 694, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 114, 436 N.Y.S.2d 251, 417 N.E.2d 545; Boyarsky v. Zimmerman Corp., 240 App Div 361, 270 N.Y.S. 134; People v. Strozier, 116 Misc.2d 103, 455 N.Y.S.2d 217; Richardson, Evidence § 138 [Prince 10th ed]; Fisch, New York Evidence §§ 142-143 [2nd ed]; see also, Annotation, Admissibility of Visual Recording, 41 ALR4th 812; Annotation, Admissibility of Videotape Film in Evidence in Criminal Trial, 60 ALR3d 333; Wharton's, Criminal Evidence § 639 [13th ed.]; Carr, Electronic Surveillance § 7.5[b][2].
Furthermore, in light of the testimony of the two Sears' employees who observed the defendant's conduct via a closed-circuit television, and in light of the corroborative testimony of the defendant's accomplice, any error in connection with the admission of the videotape would have to be considered harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). We note, in this regard, that any violation of the common law "best evidence rule" which may be said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Patterson
...testified that the videotape was a true, fair, and accurate representation of the events depicted thereon (see, e.g., People v. Fondal, 154 A.D.2d 476, 546 N.Y.S.2d 26; see generally, People v. Byrnes, 33 N.Y.2d 343, 347-349, 352 N.Y.S.2d 913, 308 N.E.2d 435; People v. Strozier, 116 Misc.2d......
-
People v. Boyd
...1072, 1073–1074, 915 N.Y.S.2d 417 [2011],lvs. denied16 N.Y.3d 832, 833, 921 N.Y.S.2d 197, 946 N.E.2d 185 [2011];People v. Fondal, 154 A.D.2d 476, 477, 546 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1989],lv. denied75 N.Y.2d 770, 551 N.Y.S.2d 912, 551 N.E.2d 113 [1989];compare People v. Roberts, 66 A.D.3d 1135, 1136–1137......
-
People v. Perez
...that they carry with them no potential for unfair prejudice are rare, but they have occurred (see People v. Fondal, 154 A.D.2d 476, 477, 546 N.Y.S.2d 26 [2d Dept. 1989], lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 770, 551 N.Y.S.2d 912, 551 N.E.2d 113 [1989] [violation of best evidence rule by admitting copy of vi......
-
People v. Ogando
...or maintainer of the equipment that the videotape accurately represents the subject matter depicted"]; People v. Fondal , 154 A.D.2d 476, 477, 546 N.Y.S.2d 26 [2d Dept. 1989] [adequate foundation established for introduction of surveillance video that depicted crime]; People v. Weckworth , ......