Baez v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Syllabus

12/19/2024 The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting over a defendant's objection a video recording of a police stop and arrest, made by an officer's body-worn camera. Such a video is not inherently a testimonial statement that automatically implicates the Confrontation Clause, even if created by law enforcement while engaging in official duties. The incidents depicted in the video dictate whether it contains any testimonial statements that are a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact. The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly reasoned that nothing depicted in the video used in this case was intended to be an assertion of some fact qualifying as a statement for purposes of the hearsay definition, and it did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. Authentication is a threshold issue in establishing that the thing in question is what its proponent claims. For videos, it is not necessary that a witness observe or testify to every moment depicted -- it is sufficient for a witness to affirm that the video accurately represents what transpired based on the witness's observations. Here, the testimony regarding use of the body-worn cameras was sufficient, in combination with the rest of the testimony, to assure the trial court of the accuracy of the process producing the video, and sufficient to determine that the video was authenticated for use as an independent silent witness as well. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.