T.H. Leland v. D.R. Leonard, 112 A. 198, 95 Vt. 36 (Vt. 1921)
The value of photographs and photographic enlargements of questioned signatures and documents is everywhere recognized. [95 Vt. 38] It is attested by this Court in Rowell v. Fuller's Estate, 59 Vt. 688, 10 A. 853. They must be properly verified, to be sure, which means that their accuracy must be vouched for by some competent person; but all that is required to make them admissible is that it shall be made to appear that they are sufficiently accurate to be of aid to the trier in ascertaining the truth. Hassam v. Safford Lumber Co., 82 Vt. 444, 74 A. 197. There was nothing in the so-called defects in those here in question that could not be pointed out and explained so as to enable the court to make a proper estimate of their value as evidence. The results of overexposure, overprinting, and the like leave them to stand much like photographs showing conditions different from those existing at the time in question ( Aldrich v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 91 Vt. 379, 100 A. 765), or objects other than those involved in the controversy ( Thayer v. Glynn, 93 Vt. 257, 106 A. 834); they were admissible in evidence and entitled to such weight as the court might ascribe to them.
Related Articles
State v. Mahlon J. Gravelle, 89 A.2d 111, 117 Vt. 238 (Vt. 1952)
Models, maps, plans and photographs belong, in the law of evidence, to the same class, and are admissible only when properly verified. That is to say, preliminary evidence is required to show that they are sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the ...
Curtis v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 80 A. 127, 32 R.I. 542 (R.I. 1911)
The admission of photographs of places and things, for the purpose of aiding the jury in applying the facts proved to the particular case, is a matter of almost everyday occurrence in the courts.
Viens v. Lanctot, 144 A.2d 711, 120 Vt. 443 (Vt. 1958)
During the trial and subject to the exception of the defendant, the court, on the plaintiffs' motion, allowed the jury to take a view of part of the premises. The defendant says this action without any claim as to how this partial view might help the ...
State v. Lipka, 817 A.2d 27, 174 Vt. 377 (Vt. 2002)
Although not explicit in its ruling, the trial court apparently based its decision to exclude the audiotape on V.R.E. 403 because it would cause "undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." V.R.E. 403. As noted, the ...
Hester A. Davis v. S. Farrar Dunn, 98 A. 81, 90 Vt. 253 (V. 1916)
But the rules governing the examination of other witnesses did not give the right to examine respecting the contents of the X-ray photograph, until the photograph had been properly verified or authenticated by some evidence other than itself. 10 R. ...