For a sound recording to be admissible into evidence, it must be shown that the device was capable of recording; that the operator of the device was competent to operate the device; that changes, additions, or deletions have not been made; and that the substance of the recording was freely and voluntarily made, without any kind of duress. Further, the authenticity and correctness of the recordings must be established; the manner of preservation of the record must be shown; and the speakers must be identified. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Collins, 232 Ga. 790 (1974); Steve M. Solomon, Jr., Inc. v. Edgar, 92 Ga. App. 207 (1955). The Georgia Supreme Court has recognized, however, that advances in recording technology have somewhat relaxed these foundation requirements. Saunders v. Padovani, 258 Ga. 866 (1989).
Poor audio quality resulting in inaudible portions of a recording can be used to attack the weight and credibility of the recording, but does not prevent its admissibility. Admission of a recording of a conversation when part of it is inaudible is in the judge's discretion. Heard v. State, 257 Ga. App. 505 (2002). However, when material portions of the recording are inaudible, then the recording should be rejected when it is the only evidence offered as to the statement. Pierce v. State, 255 Ga. App. 194 (2002). A transcript can be given to the jury to read while a recording is played. The State must lay a foundation for admission of the recording and the judge must give an instruction that the transcript itself is not evidence, but that the jury can use the transcript to assist them in listening to the recording. The transcript should not be part of the evidence that goes out with the jury during deliberations. Baker v. State, 316 Ga. 122 (2012); Turner v. State, 245 Ga. App. 476 (2000).
A videotape is admissible where the operator of the machine which produced it or one who personally witnessed the events recorded testifies that the videotape accurately portrays the events. Williams v. State, 312 Ga. App. 22 (2011).
Surveillance videos are generally not operated by an individual person. O.C.G.A. § 24-4-48 provides that subject to any other valid objection, such items are admissible in evidence when the judge determines, based on competent evidence presented to the judge, that such items tend to show reliably the fact or facts for which the items are offered. Prior to the admission of such evidence the date and time of such recording shall be contained on the evidence and the date and time must be shown to have been made at the same time as the events depicted in the videotape. O.C.G.A. § 24-9- 923.
Recordings of phone calls that a defendant made from the jail discussing his case can be used against him during trial. Boykins-White v. State, 305 Ga. App. 827 (2010). The State may lay a proper foundation for admission of a recorded telephone conversation of an inmate by showing that: the recording device was working properly and that the recording was accurately made; the manner in which it was preserved; that no alterations have been made to the recording; the identity of the speakers; and that the inmate was aware that the conversation was subject to being recorded. Lowe v. State, 310 Ga. App. 242 (2011); Davis v. State, 279 Ga. 786 (2005).
It is improper for a witness to testify to the identity of a person in a video or photograph when such testimony tends to establish a fact which the average jurors could decide for themselves. If the defendant's appearance has changed by the time of trial or there is something that makes the witness more likely to identify him the testimony is admissible. Bryson v. State, 316 Ga. App. 512 (2012). Therefore, a person not qualified as an expert and who was not the victim of or witness to a crime but who has viewed a surveillance videotape of the commission of the crime, has been permitted to give an opinion of the identity of persons depicted on the videotape if there is some basis for concluding that the person is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the video than the jury would be able to. Jackson v. State, 316 Ga. App. 80 (2012); Dawson v. State, 283 Ga. 315 (2008).