In McKeehan v. State, defendant McKeehan was found guilty of robbery with a firearm, grand theft, aggravated assault with a firearm, and kidnapping with intent to commit a felony. All of these crimes were allegedly committed at a Sleep Inn Motel in Orlando. An officer was permitted to orally identify the defendant from a security video at a different motel from where the crimes occurred. The video from the other motel was not shown. On appeal, McKeehan asserted that the trial court committed error in violating the best evidence rule by allowing the state to use oral testimony to prove the contents of a videotape (a writing), rather than with the tape itself. Did the appellate court affirm or reverse based on the admission of the officer's statements? Did this practice violate the best evidence rule? Why or why not? Would the harmless error rule help the government?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In McKeehan v. State, defendant McKeehan was found guilty of robbery with a firearm, grand theft, aggravated assault with a firearm, and kidnapping with intent to commit a felony. All of these crimes were allegedly committed at a Sleep Inn Motel in Orlando. An officer was permitted to orally identify the defendant from a security video at a different motel from where the crimes occurred. The video from the other motel was not shown. On appeal, McKeehan asserted that the trial court committed error in violating the best evidence rule by allowing the state to use oral testimony to prove the contents of a videotape (a writing), rather than with the tape itself. Did the appellate court affirm or reverse based on the admission of the officer's statements? Did this practice violate the best evidence rule? Why or why not? Would the harmless error rule help the government?

In McKeehan V