Read Full-Text Decision

Messina appealed from a judgment convicting him of criminal contempt and criminal mischief after violating an order of protection. His estranged spouse testified she witnessed Messina throw a hammer at the window of her brother and sister-in-law’s home damaging the window frame. Videotape surveillance was reviewed by the victim’s and Messina’s wife and they recognized Messina as the perpetrator. Messina objected to the admission of a copy of the DVD arguing the footage was indistinct to allow identifying the person, and that he was prejudiced by loss of the uncopied portions of the original videotapes. The panel noted gaps n the recorded media may implicate the weight to be accorded the evidence, not its admissibility. Also, it stated testimony by the victims and Messina’s wife recognizing Messina as the person on the videotape, as well as observing the incident personally, were sufficient. Further, the panel noted defense had ample opportunity to submit the exhibit for expert analysis and examine the victims. It also stated while there were short gaps in the video, there was no basis for an adverse inference they represented frames deliberately excised. Thus, the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, and the convictions were affirmed.