People v. Bowerman, 15 N.Y.2d 474 (1965)

Photographs are admissible as evidence if a proper foundation is laid establishing their accuracy, even if there are some differences in conditions between the time the photograph was taken and the time of the event in question, provided those differences do not affect important issues in the litigation.

Summary

In this case, the New York Court of Appeals held that the exclusion of photographs offered by the defendant constituted reversible error. The Court reasoned that a sufficient foundation had been laid for the photographs’ admissibility, as witnesses testified that the photos accurately depicted the condition of the pavement at the time of the accident. The fact that the photographs also showed changes in the surrounding area (like the stage of completion of a building) did not impair their admissibility, as long as they correctly represented the specific location relevant to the accident. Conflicting testimony about the accuracy of the photographs was a matter for the jury to resolve, not a basis for exclusion.

Facts

Plaintiff’s witness testified about a hole in the pavement that allegedly caused the defendant’s car to lose control.
Defendant offered photographs of the pavement taken at different times before the accident.
One witness testified that one photograph correctly showed the pavement’s condition at the time of the accident.
Another witness testified that other photographs accurately depicted the pavement’s condition before the accident, which was relevant to the plaintiff witness’s credibility regarding when the hole appeared.
The photographs also showed the abutting building at a different stage of completion and some debris on the sidewalk.

Procedural History

The trial court excluded the defendant’s photographs from evidence.
The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, ordering a new trial.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred in excluding photographs of the accident scene offered by the defendant, when witnesses testified to the photographs’ accuracy, but the photographs also depicted changes in the surrounding area.

Holding

Yes, because a sufficient foundation was laid for the introduction of the photographs, and the differences in the surrounding area did not affect the important issue of the pavement’s condition. Conflicting testimony about the photographs’ accuracy was for the jury to resolve.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the testimony of witnesses established a sufficient foundation for the admissibility of the photographs. The Court cited Miller v. City of New York, stating that “Any changes in the condition of the terrain which do not affect important issues in the litigation do not impair admissibility, and under such circumstances the photographs should be received in evidence and the differences explained.” The Court emphasized that the photographs’ depiction of the pavement’s condition, the central issue in the case, was not affected by changes in the building or sidewalk. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where photographs showing post-accident safety precautions are inadmissible due to their prejudicial implication of prior negligence. The Court also stated that disagreements among witnesses about the photographs’ accuracy were a matter for the jury to decide, not a reason to exclude the evidence altogether. The dissent argued that the trial judge has discretionary power to exclude a photograph if the testimony as to its accuracy is confused and contradictory. The dissent also argued that even if the exclusion was error, it was not prejudicial enough to require a new trial.