Ok, It goes, like this: Guy walks into a convenience store, pulles out an 8" knife, goes after the clerk, tries to walk out with a 12 pack of beer...all is recorded by the video camera of the store. The clerk, which is the victim in the indictment, took off to another country. Can i still proceed with the case with only the video of the incident? Any help is greatly appreciated. I don't want this guy walking around my community. Has anyone had this issue before?

No law requires the victim to testify. We do it all the time in murder cases. Your only problem will be whether you can prove your elements without the victim present. Depending on the quality of your video, I can easily see how the case could be made without the victim testifying.

Of course, I'm glad I'm not the one having to try the case....

If you want a cite here is one. Shelvin v. State
884 S.W.2d 874, 877 (Tex.App. - Austin 1994, pet. ref'd)("An accused's right to be confronted by the “witnesses against him” speaks to the right of confrontation that a defendant enjoys, not to the state's burden of production or the number of witnesses required for conviction. * * * In the instant case, the victim of the alleged crime was not present at trial, did not testify, and any testimony previously recorded was not introduced. Appellant was not denied his right of confrontation . . . . ")

Remember that you have to authenticate the video to establish the predicate for admissibility. Are you able to do that without the victim's testimony?

i can do that through a person that has knowledge as to how the video recording system works. Can i? Thanks for all your help.

You might look at this case


Appellant specifically contends that because Mr. Martinez did not witness the events that occurred in the videotape, he cannot testify that it is an accurate depiction of what occurred. Many federal courts have rejected this type of argument using what has been called the �silent witness� analysis. FN2 Over the last twenty-five years, this theory of authentication has developed in many jurisdictions and allows videos or photographs to �speak for themselves� upon introduction of evidence that the process or system that produced the photo or video is reliable.
* * *
The Fifth Circuit has held that testimony that showed how the tape was put in the camera, how the camera was activated, the removal of the tape immediately after the offense, the chain of custody, and how the film was developed was sufficient to support the trial court's decision to admit the evidence. United States v. Taylor, 530 F.2d 639, 641-42 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 845, 97 S.Ct. 127, 50 L.Ed.2d 117 (1976); see also United States v. Clayton, 643 F.2d 1071, 1074 (5th Cir.1981). Another federal court has concluded that photos *720 taken by an ATM machine were properly authenticated on even less evidence. United States v. Fadayini, 28 F.3d 1236, 1241 (D.C.Cir.1994). The court stated that mere testimony of a bank employee familiar with the operation of the camera and the fact that the time and date were indicated on the evidence were sufficient to authenticate the photos. Id.


Reavis v. State, 84 S.W.3d 716, 719-20 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).