In State v. Fuquan K. Knight (A-37/38-23/088970) (Decided December 18, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a trial court did not err in allowing a surveillance video of the defendants to be played in slow motion and paused for the jury. In affirming the Appellate Division, the Court agreed that trial courts have the discretion to grant a jury’s requests during deliberations to replay surveillance videos in slow motion one or more times, provided that the playbacks occur in open court under the judge’s supervision and in the presence of counsel.
Facts of State v. Knight
In October 2018, three men robbed a victim behind a deli. The victim identified defendants Fuquan K. Knight and Shaquan K. Knight as two of the robbers. At trial, defendants disputed the identification and their involvement in the robbery. The State presented a surveillance video taken from inside the deli approximately six seconds in length that showed — for about two seconds — four men walking outside past the partially obscured window in the deli’s back door. The State played the video as part of its case-in-chief and again several times in closing, once in slow motion.
During deliberations, the jury requested that the video be replayed several more times in slow motion, at other varying speeds, and with intermittent pauses. Over defendants’ objections, the judge permitted those playbacks under her supervision in the courtroom. The jury found defendants guilty of armed robbery and other offenses.
The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that there was no reversible error concerning the slow-motion video replays. The Appellate Division held that, subject to exclusion under N.J.R.E. 403, relevant “surveillance video evidence may be presented during a trial or closing argument . . . in slow motion or at other varying speeds, or with intermittent pauses, if the trial court reasonably finds [it] would assist the jurors’ understanding of the pertinent events and help them resolve disputed factual issues.”
Again, relying on N.J.R.E. 403, the Appellate Division further determined that “trial courts have the discretion to grant a jury’s requests during deliberations to replay surveillance videos in such modes one or more times, provided that the playbacks occur in open court under the judge’s supervision and in the presence of counsel.”
In exercising their discretion in admitting into evidence or allowing the replay of surveillance video, the Appellate Division determined, trial courts should consider, among other things: (a) whether the video has a soundtrack that contains recorded statements of the filmed persons; (b) whether the video is difficult to discern when played only at normal speed; (c) whether the video can assist in resolving disputed issues of identification; (d) whether the video bears upon disputed issues of intentionality; and (e) whether the video contains content that is particularly disturbing or inflammatory to watch repeatedly in slow motion.
To provide greater clarity, the Appellate Division recommended that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge to address jury requests to replay surveillance video evidence and to caution jurors to afford such evidence only appropriate and not undue weight in comparison with the other evidence at trial.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in State v. Knight
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. In its per curium opinion, the Court largely adopted the reasoning set forth in the Appellate Division decision. “We affirm the Appellate Division’s judgment substantially for the reasons expressed in the Honorable Jack M. Sabatino’s comprehensive opinion,” the Court wrote.
First, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division’s guidance and list of non-exclusive factors for trial courts to consider in exercising their discretion. It went on to support the recommendation that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge regarding jury requests to replay video evidence.
In reaching its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized that “watching a video in slow motion is a commonplace method of playing a video that is not beyond the ken of an average juror.” The Court further explained: “Pushing a button to play a video at a speed slower than normal to assist the jury in viewing the difficult- to-perceive recording here was not an alteration or distortion of the video. It was the same exact video — simply played in slow motion.”
Nonetheless, the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged that some tools or functions may be so specialized that their usage constitutes an alteration of evidence, or the creation of new evidence. In such cases, the party intended to play the video must come forward and alert the trial court and opposing counsel to any modifications or alterations made to the evidence. The Court added that in those situations, a qualified expert may need to testify about the modifications consistent with N.J.R.E. 702.