☢ test - Í

Strickland v. State, 302 Ga.App. 44, 690 S.E.2d 638 (January 14, 2010). Witness’s identification of defendant on surveillance video properly admitted, though witness wasn’t present when the video was made; defendant’s appearance had changed by time of trial, and witness was familiar with defendant’s appearance at the time of the crime. “A lay witness who is neither a witness or victim of a crime, but who has viewed a surveillance videotape of the commission of a crime, is permitted to give his or her ‘opinion of the identity of a person depicted on the videotape “if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury. This criterion is fulfilled where the witness is familiar with the defendant's appearance around the time the surveillance photograph was taken and the defendant's appearance has changed prior to trial.”’ (Citations and footnote omitted.) Dawson v. State, 283 Ga. 315, 320(4) (658 S.E.2d 755) (2008). It is improper, however, ‘to allow a witness to testify as to the identity of a person in a video ... when such opinion evidence tends only to establish a fact which average jurors could decide thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id.; OCGA § 24-9-65.” Dawson v. State, 283 Ga. 315, 658 S.E.2d 755 (March 17, 2008). 1. Surveillance video was properly admitted without authenticating eyewitness; instead, hotel’s director of security testified that the system worked properly, although the time stamp was “off” by 104 minutes. “We agree with the trial court that the videotape was admissible under OCGA § 24-4-48(c). The testimony of the hotel security director that the security personnel in the dispatch office were not trained to operate machinery in the dispatch room and did nothing more than remove a spent videotape and replace it with a fresh tape established that the devices producing the images that were recorded on the videotape were not operated by a person or under the personal control or in the presence of an individual operator. Id. The videotape contained a date- time stamp, and it was established that the date and time stamp was made contemporaneously with the events depicted in the videotape. Although the date-time stamp was admittedly inaccurate, being 104 minutes ‘off,’ we conclude that the statute’s intent, insofar as admissibility is concerned, is that the proffered evidence show a contemporaneous recording of the passage of time. That the date-time stamp does not reflect the actual time when the images were captured goes to the weight to be given the evidence, not its admissibility. See Holloway v. State, 287 Ga.App. 655(2) (653 S.E.2d 95) (2007). See also State v. Ayscue, 169 N.C.App. 548, 551-552 (610 S.E.2d 389) (2005) (time and date discrepancy did not render it inadmissible).” 2. Poor quality of video did not preclude its admission. Holloway v. State, 287 Ga.App. 655, 653 S.E.2d 95 (September 27, 2007). Trial court properly admitted church surveillance tape although it “did not contain the date and time on which it was recorded ” as required by OCGA § 24-4-48(c). “However, OCGA § 24-4-48(d) provides that ‘[t]his Code section shall not be the exclusive method of introduction into evidence of ... videotapes ... but shall be supplementary to any other statutes and lawful methods existing in this state.’ Both this Court and our Supreme Court have affirmed trial courts’ admission of videotapes, in circumstances such as in this case, where even though there are no contemporaneous date and times on the videotapes, there is other evidence of reliability. See, e.g., Tolver v. State, 269 Ga. 530, 532(3) (500 S.E.2d 563) (1998) (affirming the admission of a surveillance tape that had been spliced after the crime based upon the identification of the tape’s brand name label and testimony from a store supervisor as to the store’s surveillance procedures, a GBI agent who found the tape, and a forensic photographer who repaired the tape); Wallace v. State, 267 Ga.App. 801, 803-804(1) (600 S.E.2d 808) (2004) (affirming the admission of a videotape despite the fact that it displayed the incorrect date when witnesses to the event confirmed the videotape’s contents and the person who was responsible for inserting the tape explained his daily routine); …. In the instant case, the trial court was presented with sufficient evidence from which it could be inferred that the tape reliably depicted the burglary taking place. The church custodian testified that on the morning of the burglary, he unlocked the box containing the videotape in the presence of the investigating officer. The investigating officer personally removed the videotape from the recorder and placed it into evidence. Her investigation subsequently revealed that the videotape contained footage from the day of the burglary as well as the previous day. On the tape, she personally observed Holloway, who she had known for 19 years, breaking the window inside of the church. The church custodian testified that he had been at the church the previous evening, on June 12, at around 7:00 p.m. and found the church to be in good repair. Finally, the technician who had installed the security system described how the camera operated and explained that it had been programmed to record for four-minute periods of time after being activated. He concluded after watching the video that the camera had performed properly as it was designed to do.” LLLL. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE Presley v. State, 290 Ga.App. 99, 658 S.E.2d 773 (February 22, 2008). “Presley argues that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury not to open the package containing the recovered cocaine. Specifically, he asserts that the jury should have been free to open the package in order to conduct ‘its own review of the physical evidence.’ The jury was not equipped to do anything more than scrutinize the package of cocaine, however, and the trial court did not abuse its