State v. Spencer

Under OEC 901, the approach to establishing authenticity for recordings is flexible and depends on the circumstances presented and the nature of the proffered evidence. See State v. Sassarini, 300 Or App 106, 452 P3d 457 (2019). In assessing whether a proponent presented a prima facie case of authenticity, a court considers traditional factors rather than strict requirements.

Defendant appealed a conviction for theft and assigned error to the trial court’s ruling to admit security camera footage depicting the defendant.  Defendant argued that the footage was edited and that no witness verified its accuracy, therefore, the State failed to meet strict requirements for authenticating a recording. State v. Miller, 6 Or App 366, 369-70, 487 P2d 1387 (1971) (applying seven-part test “strict foundation requirements” to admit recording). The State argued the OEC 901 approach to establishing authenticity for recordings is flexible and depends on the circumstances presented and the nature of the proffered evidence. See State v. Sassarini, 300 Or App 106, 452 P3d 457 (2019).  In assessing whether a proponent presented a prima facie case of authenticity, a court considers traditional factors rather than strict requirements.   The extent to which the court will require the proponent to satisfy the Miller factors necessarily relies upon the circumstances presented and the nature of the proffered evidence. The Court found that even though the State presented scant evidence to support one of the Miller factors, it satisfied each of the other factors and met its burden under OEC 901(1). Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting the security footage. Affirmed.