What is the test for admitting a video recording in a motion for a motion to be heard in a personal injury case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Castellon v. Castellon (In re Castellon), B260979 (Cal. App. 2016):
As the trial court noted, "[t]here was never any proffer of a video in any of the moving papers," and no "offer to authenticate it." Wife cites no authority to suggest the trial court was required to consider evidence never offered or authenticated. (See O'Laskey v. Sortino (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250 [no foundation laid for introduction of tape recording, so no error in refusing to admit transcript of recording], disapproved on another ground in Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 776, fn. 4.)4 The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the video.
Page 17
The order is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
