State v. Luke

464 P.3d 914 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P alleged that Luke (D) committed a number of burglaries; two of which were captured on home surveillance systems. At trial, P attempted to proffer evidence against D of a video recording by the Yamamotos' security system which allegedly recorded D in the backyard of the Yamamoto residence during the attempted burglary along with video evidence recorded by the security system at Kohara and Shimoda's residence showing a person entering their property and leaving with a suitcase. Yamamoto testified that he was inside his residence on a conference call at the time of the incident. He walked to his kitchen and looked into his backyard through the jalousie windows in his back exterior door. Yamamoto testified that he saw a silhouette of a person through the window, which prompted him to yell out to the person 'something like[,] what are you doing?' Yamamoto testified that the individual was startled, and said 'something like[,] oh', and then left the premises. Yamamoto called 911 and reported that someone had tried to break into his residence. Yamamoto then accessed the video footage recorded by his security system to describe to the 911 operator the physical description of the person who had entered his backyard, including the clothing the person was wearing. Yamamoto later identified D as the person who attempted the burglary. P then proceeded to examine Yamamoto on the surveillance footage captured by the security system that he had provided to HPD. Yamamoto explained that he had purchased the system online and installed it himself. The system consisted of one camera and was situated in his backyard facing the back gate. Yamamoto testified that the camera is always on and that it records when it detects motion. If the motion continues, Yamamoto explained that the security system sends him an e-mail that is accompanied by a still-frame of the video recording. Only he and his wife have access to the recorded data, which they can access from either their computer or mobile devices. The security system has a date-stamp capability that synchronizes the time with a standard time server that ensures that the correct time is referenced in each recording. P then attempted to admit the Yamamoto Video, which Yamamoto identified as a copy of the security video he had provided to the police. D objected based on lack of foundation. The court did not admit the evidence. The court later conducted a hearing to determine the admissibility of the Yamamoto Video. Yamamoto recounted all his previous testimony about the system but admitted on cross-examination that he did not manufacture the system and was not a technician trained on the system. The court determined the evidence was authenticated and admitted it. The Circuit Court also held a Rule 104 hearing to determine the admissibility of the Shimoda Videos. The Shimoda Videos contain surveillance footage provided to HPD which allegedly showed a person entering and leaving the Kohara/Shimoda property on the day of the incident. P attempted to admit the Shimoda Videos through the testimony of Shimoda, one of the owners and occupants of the Kohara/Shimoda residence. The home was equipped with a Cam Security surveillance system that was installed by a Cam Security technician in September 2013. The security system includes four cameras situated in various parts of the property that are never turned off and are constantly recorded. Shimoda explained that he is able to monitor the footage of all four cameras through a fifty-inch screen that is broken into four quadrants, each showing the view from one camera. Shimoda further testified that one indication of when a camera is not functioning properly is when its corresponding quadrant on the screen turns blank or blue and fails to display an image. On the day of the incident, three of the four cameras were functioning, and the fourth camera typically did not function in the daylight. A Cam Security technician was called to his house on the day of the incident to assist in downloading the relevant video footage for the purpose of turning it over to HPD. P attempted to elicit testimony from Shimoda on whether he knew if the security system was operating properly on the day of the incident, however each time the question was posed the Circuit Court sustained D's objection based on lack of foundation. P proceeded to further question Shimoda. After going through his house and noticing some things missing and some things moved around, Shimoda checked his security system. He played footage from earlier that day and watched the video with several police officers and family members. The security system had recorded a person entering his property at approximately 11:20 a.m. on the day of the incident, Shimoda described what the person was wearing, and that the person had proceeded toward the back of his house. Shimoda further testified that at approximately 11:50 a.m., the same person was recorded leaving the front door with Shimoda's black suitcase, which Shimoda last saw when he had left for work. Shimoda testified that he called a Cam Security technician who came to his house at about 1:30 or 2:00 p.m. the afternoon of the incident, who downloaded the relevant footage from the security system to provide to HPD for their investigation. Shimoda testified that he reviewed the Shimoda Videos prior to trial and they were identical to the footage he viewed on the day of the incident. D objected again when P offered the evidence based on foundation, confrontation, and hearsay. The court sustained the objection. It dismissed the case. P appealed in part on the exclusion of the Shimoda video.