Criminal Law: Unlawful Use of a Weapon-Admission of Video Evidence

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon and assault, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting video of defendant’s confrontation with a police officer on the day of the assault because the video lacked foundation and relevance. Defendant further argued that the trial court also erred in overruling his objection to the state’s closing argument that shifted the burden of proof to defendant. Defendant also contended that the trial court erroneously admitted portions of the approved jury instructions.

Where the video was relevant to provide a complete picture of the charged events, there was no error in admitting the video where the state laid a sufficient foundation to find that the police officer was present for the events depicted in the video and the officer would have testified to those events in the absence of the video.

Dowd, J., concurring: “But I diverge slightly from the principal opinion with respect to the first component of plain error review – whether the admission of the brief video (Exhibit 38) of Burst’s interaction with Sergeant J.D. several hours after Burst’s criminal interaction with the victim here was evident, obvious, and clear error. I believe that it was because the video was not logically or legally relevant to the charged crimes.”

Judgment is affirmed.

State v. Burst (MLW No. 83015/Case No. ED112420 – 19 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Stevens, J.) Appeal from circuit court, Ste. Genevieve County, Poor, J. (Nick A. Zotos and Michael A. Gross for appellant) (Nathan J. Aquino for respondent)