Voudrie test in Alabama

2024Rewritten to have more general application, the Voudrie standard requires: " '(1) a showing that the device or process or mechanism that produced the item being offered as evidence was capable of recording what a witness would have seen or heard had a witness been present at the scene or event recorded, " '(2) a showing that the operator of the device or process or mechanism was competent, " '(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the resulting recording, photograph, videotape, etc., " '(4) a showing that no changes, additions, or deletions have been made, " '(5) a showing of

2024Rewritten to have more general application, the Voudrie standard requires: " '(1) a showing that the device or process or mechanism that produced the item being offered as evidence was capable of recording what a witness would have seen or heard had a witness been present at the scene or event recorded, " '(2) a showing that the operator of the device or process or mechanism was competent, " '(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the resulting recording, photograph, videotape, etc., " '(4) a showing that no changes, additions, or deletions have been made, " '(5) a showing of

2002Subsequent cases such as Carraway v. State , 583 So.2d 993 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), and Molina v. State , 533 So.2d 701 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), applying the Voudrie test were analyzed by this Court in Ex parte Fuller , 620 So.2d 675 (Ala. 1993).

2002Subsequent cases such as Carraway v. State , 583 So.2d 993 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), and Molina v. State , 533 So.2d 701 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988), applying the Voudrie test were analyzed by this Court in Ex parte Fuller , 620 So.2d 675 (Ala. 1993).

2024App. 2016) (holding that the State had failed to satisfy the Voudrie test because there was "no testimony that the surveillance camera … was working properly and that it was capable of accurately recording at the time the video was made" (emphasis added)); and Spradley v. State, 128 So. 3d 774, 782 (Ala. Crim.

2024App. 2016) (holding that the State had failed to satisfy the Voudrie test because there was "no testimony that the surveillance camera … was working properly and that it was capable of accurately recording at the time the video was made" (emphasis added)); and Spradley v. State, 128 So. 3d 774, 782 (Ala. Crim.

2024Compare Horton v. State, 217 So. 3d 27, 63 (Ala. Crim.

2024Compare Horton v. State, 217 So. 3d 27, 63 (Ala. Crim.

2023"The quality of the tape was a factor for the jury's consideration in determining the weight to be given the evidence, rather than a factor concerning its admissibility." Davis v. State, 529 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Ala. Crim.

2013Under this theory, the party offering the item must present sufficient evidence to meet the “reliable representation” standard, that is, the witness must testify that the witness has sufficient personal knowledge of the scene or events pictured or the sounds recorded and that the item offered accurately and reliably represents the actual scene or sounds.’ “620 So.2d at 678.” McCray v. State, 88 So.3d 1, 61-62 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (emphasis omitted).

2013Under this theory, the party offering the item must present sufficient evidence to meet the “reliable representation” standard, that is, the witness must testify that the witness has sufficient personal knowledge of the scene or events pictured or the sounds recorded and that the item offered accurately and reliably represents the actual scene or sounds.’ “620 So.2d at 678.” McCray v. State, 88 So.3d 1, 61-62 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (emphasis omitted).

2011See also Washington v. State, 406 Md. 642, 653 , 961 A.2d 1110, 1116 (2008) (“Courts have admitted surveillance tapes and photographs made by surveillance equipment that operates automatically when ‘a witness testifies to the type of equipment or camera used, its general reliability, the quality of the recorded product, the process by which it was focused, or the general reliability of the entire system.’ ”); Logue v. State, 529 So.2d 1064, 1068 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (“The purpose of laying a proper foundation for the admission of a tape recording is to show that the [depiction on the tape] was

2011See also Washington v. State, 406 Md. 642, 653 , 961 A.2d 1110, 1116 (2008) (“Courts have admitted surveillance tapes and photographs made by surveillance equipment that operates automatically when ‘a witness testifies to the type of equipment or camera used, its general reliability, the quality of the recorded product, the process by which it was focused, or the general reliability of the entire system.’ ”); Logue v. State, 529 So.2d 1064, 1068 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (“The purpose of laying a proper foundation for the admission of a tape recording is to show that the [depiction on the tape] was

2011See also Washington v. State, 406 Md. 642, 653 , 961 A.2d 1110, 1116 (2008) (“Courts have admitted surveillance tapes and photographs made by surveillance equipment that operates automatically when ‘a witness testifies to the type of equipment or camera used, its general reliability, the quality of the recorded product, the process by which it was focused, or the general reliability of the entire system.’ ”); Logue v. State, 529 So.2d 1064, 1068 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (“The purpose of laying a proper foundation for the admission of a tape recording is to show that the [depiction on the tape] was

2011See also Washington v. State, 406 Md. 642, 653 , 961 A.2d 1110, 1116 (2008) (“Courts have admitted surveillance tapes and photographs made by surveillance equipment that operates automatically when ‘a witness testifies to the type of equipment or camera used, its general reliability, the quality of the recorded product, the process by which it was focused, or the general reliability of the entire system.’ ”); Logue v. State, 529 So.2d 1064, 1068 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (“The purpose of laying a proper foundation for the admission of a tape recording is to show that the [depiction on the tape] was

2010Rewritten to have more general application, the Voudrie standard requires: “‘(1) a showing that the device or process or mechanism that produced the item being offered as evidence was capable of recording what a witness would have seen or heard had a witness been present at the scene or event recorded, “‘(2) a showing that the operator of the device or process or mechanism was competent, “ ‘(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the resulting recording, photograph, videotape, etc., “ ‘(4) a showing that no changes, additions, or deletions have been made, “ ‘(5) a showing of t

2010Rewritten to have more general application, the Voudrie standard requires: “‘(1) a showing that the device or process or mechanism that produced the item being offered as evidence was capable of recording what a witness would have seen or heard had a witness been present at the scene or event recorded, “‘(2) a showing that the operator of the device or process or mechanism was competent, “ ‘(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the resulting recording, photograph, videotape, etc., “ ‘(4) a showing that no changes, additions, or deletions have been made, “ ‘(5) a showing of t

1992The Voudrie test for audio tapes, however, was expressly rejected by this court in Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 1289, 1296 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).

1992The Voudrie test for audio tapes, however, was expressly rejected by this court in Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 1289, 1296 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).

1992Id.; see also Ross v. State, 555 So.2d 1179, 1182 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (implicitly rejecting the Voudrie test); Molina v. State, 533 So.2d 701, 712 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1086 , 109 S.Ct. 1547 , 103 L.Ed.2d 851 (1989) (rejecting the application of the Voud-rie test for the admission of video recordings and noting the obsolescence of that test as applied to sound recordings).

1992Id.; see also Ross v. State, 555 So.2d 1179, 1182 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) (implicitly rejecting the Voudrie test); Molina v. State, 533 So.2d 701, 712 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1086 , 109 S.Ct. 1547 , 103 L.Ed.2d 851 (1989) (rejecting the application of the Voud-rie test for the admission of video recordings and noting the obsolescence of that test as applied to sound recordings).